Podcast appearances and mentions of Paul Ehrlich

Coming at you from Baton Rouge, Jonah Goldberg is ornery and looking to settle some scores. After covering his bases on Iran, the ethics of criticizing the war, and the metrics of success, he moves on to lazy media criticism, ethnic humor, goyslop, and James Fishback. Finally, in a Pulitzer-worthy climax, Jonah definitively dismantles the legacy of Paul Ehrlich and annihilates Steve Hayes' obsession with the word “junto.” Show Notes:—Wednesday G-File: “An Anti-Manifesto on the Iran War”—The Intelligence from Economist Podcasts+—Eli Lake and Andrew Sullivan Debate the Iran War—Last week's Ruminant—Charles Hilu: “Florida's College Republicans and Their Love Affair With James Fishback”—The American Conservative: “Is James Fishback the William F. Buckley of Florida?”—Jonah: “The Lasting Damage of Paul Ehrlich's Pessimism”—Ben Wattenberg: “The Nonsense Explosion”—Kevin Williamson in The Dispatch on Paul Ehrlich—Jonah's book: Suicide of the West—The New York Times' absurd obituary of Paul Ehrlich—Jonah on The Overton Window The Remnant is a production of ⁠The Dispatch⁠, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of Jonah's G-File newsletters—⁠click here⁠. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member ⁠by clicking here⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's Thursday, March 19th, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Chine Communists continue to harass the church China's National People's Congress passed the innocuously named “Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress” last week.  The new law requires the enforcement of a strong sense of Chinese identity across society. This would continue China's suppression of religious and ethnic minorities. It would also affect social organizations and churches.  International Christian Concern noted, “Christian home churches are an attempt to escape government scrutiny, but even they are often raided and their members arrested on charges of working against the interests of the state.” China is ranked 17th on the Open Doors' World Watch List of the most oppressive countries to be a Christian.  Trump postpones trip to meet with Chinese President China will have to reschedule a meeting with the United States as the war in Iran continues. U.S. President Donald Trump said Tuesday he will postpone his trip to Beijing. The trip was scheduled for the end of the month. President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping plan to discuss trade tariffs. The trade war between the two countries has been on pause since last October.  Commenting on the postponement, President Trump said, “Because of the [Iran] war, I want to be here. I have to be here.” Israel killed Iran's top security official on Monday Israel killed Iran's top security official, Ali Larijani, in a strike on Monday. Larijani was likely running the country since U.S. and Israeli strikes killed Iran's supreme leader last month. The recent war has lasted nearly three weeks so far. President Trump told reporters yesterday that America's involvement in the war may be ending soon.  Listen. TRUMP: “We're not ready to leave yet, but we'll be leaving in the near future. We'll be leaving in pretty much the very near future. But, right now, they've been decimated from every standpoint. We've had great support from countries in the Middle East. Great support. But we've had essentially no support from NATO.” Paul Ehrlich, father of population control, died Paul Ehrlich, known as the father of population control, died last Friday at the age of 93. The biology professor and population scientist wrote the 1968 book, The Population Bomb. Ehrlich falsely claimed population growth would cause widespread starvation. He promoted the murder of unborn babies and mass sterilization to stem the alleged tide of overpopulation.  His work inspired governments and organizations to push contraception, abortion, and sterilization on the world.  Hebrews 9:27 says, “It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.” Scotland Parliament votes against legalized assisted suicide Scotland's Parliament voted Tuesday against a bill to legalize assisted suicide. The vote ends two years of national debate on the issue. Alisdair Hungerford-Morgan, Chief Executive of Right To Life UK, said, “This is a great victory for the most vulnerable in our society. They deserve protection and care, not a pathway to suicide. If this legislation had passed, countless vulnerable people would have been pressured or coerced into ending their lives.”  Moody Bible victorious in religious liberty case In the United States, a Christian college won its religious freedom case against the Chicago Board of Education. Previously, the city's public schools blocked The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago from participating in its student-teaching program. The college could only participate if it compromised its Christian hiring practices. The public schools backed down after the lawsuit.  Jeremiah Galus with Alliance Defending Freedom commented, “We're hopeful other public officials will take note that they can't inject themselves illegally and unconstitutionally into a religious non-profit's hiring practices.” YouVersion: No AI chatbots to answer theological questions And finally, a leading digital Bible platform is not implementing artificial intelligence chatbots for answering theological questions. The YouVersion Bible platform has over one billion downloads around the world.  YouVersion CEO Bobby Gruenewald told Christian Daily International that AI models are inaccurate. He said, “The best model with the best performance, with the most popular versions of the Bible that are most indexed, misquotes Scripture at least 15% of the time. Some of them as much as 60% of the time.” Unlike chatbots, God's Word is always accurate. Psalm 12:6 says, “The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver tried in a furnace of Earth, purified seven times.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Thursday, March 19th, in the year of our Lord 2026. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Neo-Malthusian Paul Ehrlich recently passed away, but not before his false doomsday claims made his a very wealthy man. Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/remembering-paul-ehrlich-even-if-we-would-rather-not

Neo-Malthusian Paul Ehrlich recently passed away, but not before his false doomsday claims made his a very wealthy man. Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/remembering-paul-ehrlich-even-if-we-would-rather-not

Join Washington Examiner Senior Writer David Harsanyi and Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway as they discuss the Oscars' irrelevance, dissect the media's fascination with environmentalist Paul Ehrlich and his erroneous overpopulation fearmongering, and analyze Americans' response to the ongoing Iran war. Mollie also shares about her trip to Las Vegas, and David laments Team USA's World Baseball Classic loss. Pre-order Mollie's book Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution here.Buy tickets to David's "Forged in Freedom; A History of American Guns" talk here. The Federalist Foundation is a nonprofit, and we depend entirely on our listeners and readers — not corporations. If you value fearless, independent journalism, please consider a tax-deductible gift today at TheFederalist.com/donate. Your support keeps us going.

Happy Day After St. Patrick's Day! Ann conducted a poll on X regarding peoples' favorite things about Ireland. Watch this week's show where she reads your most beautiful comments. Please keep them coming.We also get a beautiful St.Patrick's day toast from one of our favorite Israeli heroes. Watch the show to find out which one. And speaking of Israel - it always amazes us that Ireland is so hostile to this country that they have so much in common with. They are both countries where the indigenous population was colonized and persecuted. They both lost their language. Israel has successfully achieved independence and built a nation and revived a language - something that the Irish people have failed to do. The Irish still speak English - the Israelis speak Hebrew.Is jealousy part of the Irish problem with Israel?Shapiro Pushes A LieAnd speaking of Israel. Watch the podcast where we exclusively reveal how Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro lies to push the fake news that the home of Mayor Momdani in New York was attacked because he was a Muslim. Shapiro knew this was a lie but pushed it anyway.And hatred of Israel is so strong that the Northern Ireland Minister of Finance couldn't keep her mouth shut and destroyed a 300 well-paid job opportunity for the country.Watch this week where you can learn how to fail in business without even trying.Headlines From Another PlanetAnd on a lighter note Ann brings you not one but two crazy headlines this week! Find out why Los Angeles residents are strapping cameras on their heads to do the dishes and how Indonesian trans sex workers are impacted from climate change. Yes, that's a real headline!.And speaking of journalism... our friend Christopher Dodge, is making a documentary about how the crimes of the Biden family were covered up and the brave IRS whistleblowers who exposed them. And the price they paid for their bravery. The documentary is Shielded By Power . It's the perfect companion piece to our movie My Son Hunter. But Christopher needs your help. Hollywood won't touch this movie. He is crowdfunding on Indiegogo. Please donate to ensure this important project gets made. Read more about the production here.Journalism Or Fan Fiction?Do you remember when Phelim told you about his torrid afternoon with Bridgette Bardot? Well now it's Ann's turn. She steams up the studio this week with Gavin Newsom, and the most sycophantic puff piece ever written by a journalist.And see where this journalist's possibly accidental remark exposes the truth. And Gavin Newsom's connection to Remmington Steele.And speaking of frauds, the climate alarmist Paul Ehrlich is dead at 93. Watch this week's show where we expose the man who frightened more than two generations into spending their lives childless, and anxious about the future.Stories.io Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.And please like and subscribe wherever you get our content. We can't read your mind but we can read your comments which we love. And we may even show some of them on the air!OCTOBER 7 the play was a huge success at the Trump Kennedy Center! If you missed out on seeing it don't lose hope. We want to keep touring the play, but we need your help. Please go here to donate.

We lost scientific and environmental icon Paul Ehlich on March 13. We're honoring his memory by revisiting Dave Gardner's first interview with Paul, outside his Stanford University office in 2007 for the documentary, GrowthBusters: Hooked on Growth. Ehrlich was most famous for authoring, with wife Anne Ehrlich, the bestselling 1968 book, The Population Bomb. While the book inspired widespread concern about human overpopulation, those who profited from growth worked to discredit the book, the scientist, and the notion that human numbers above 2 or 3 billion would seriously harm our life-supporting ecosystems. Undaunted by the critics, Ehrlich spent the next 58 years speaking the truth that we were testing very real limits to growth. We'll devote several episodes of the GrowthBusters podcast to this smart and fearless scientist. This episode reprises episode 110 of the Conversation Earth syndicated radio series. LINKS: Conversation Earth radio series: http://www.conversationearth.org/episode-list/ GrowthBusters Podcast episodes featuring Paul Ehrlich: #70 Paul Ehrlich on The Limits to Growth: https://www.growthbusters.org/ehrlich-limits-to-growth/ #43 Paul Ehrlich Uncensored on Earth Day 50th Anniversary: https://www.growthbusters.org/ehrlich-earth-day-2020/   New York Times obituary: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/15/books/paul-r-ehrlich-dead.html The Population Bomb: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb One With Nineveh – by Paul and Anne Ehrlich: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/282038.One_With_Nineveh Meeting the Challenges of Population, Environment, and Resources: The Costs of Inaction – by Paul Ehrlich, Kenneth Arrow, E.O. Wilson and others: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/820031468764393924/pdf/multi-page.pdf Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future – by Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, William Ripple, Eileen Crist and others: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419/full GrowthBusters: Hooked on Growth (documentary by Dave Gardner): https://growthbustersmovie.org Give Us Feedback: Record a voice message for us to play on the podcast: 719-402-1400 Send an email to podcast at growthbusters.org The GrowthBusters theme song was written and produced by Jake Fader and sung by Carlos Jones. https://www.fadermusicandsound.com/ https://carlosjones.com/ On the GrowthBusters podcast, we come to terms with the limits to growth, explore the joy of sustainable living, and provide a recovery program from our society's growth addiction (economic/consumption and population). This podcast is part of the GrowthBusters project to raise awareness of overshoot and end our culture's obsession with, and pursuit of, growth. Dave Gardner directed the documentary GrowthBusters: Hooked on Growth, which Stanford Biologist Paul Ehrlich declared "could be the most important film ever made." Co-host, and self-described "energy nerd," Stephanie Gardner has degrees in Environmental Studies and Environmental Law & Policy. Join the GrowthBusters online community https://growthbusters.groups.io/ GrowthBusters: Hooked on Growth – free on YouTube https://youtu.be/_w0LiBsVFBo Join the conversation on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/GrowthBustersPodcast/ Follow us on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/growthbusting/ Follow us on Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/growthbusters.bsky.social Make a donation to support this non-profit project. https://www.growthbusters.org/donate/ Archive of GrowthBusters podcast episodes http://www.growthbusters.org/podcast/ Subscribe to GrowthBusters email updates https://lp.constantcontact.com/su/umptf6w/signup Explore the issues at http://www.growthbusters.org View the GrowthBusters channel on YouTube Follow the podcast so you don't miss an episode:  

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.On today's edition of The Briefing, Dr. Mohler discusses the death of Paul Ehrlich, the problems with population control ideology, if medical associations will backpedal from the transgender revolution, new legislation in California that would require insurance companies to cover female medical procedures that are biologically impossible for men, another woke ruling and its controversy in California, and what nudism in the headlines lays bare about our cultural moment.Part I (00:13 – 09:36)The Death of Paul Ehrlich: Author of “The Population Bomb” and Prophet of the Culture of Death Dies at 93Part II (09:36 – 19:53)Reality vs. the Population Control Worldview: Evidence Did Not Confirm Ehrlich's Population Control Hypothesis – So as a Scientist, Why Didn't He Change His Theory?Paul R. Ehrlich, Who Alarmed the World With ‘The Population Bomb,' Dies at 93 by The New York Times (Keith Schneider)Part III (19:53 – 20:21)Population Control vs. Creation Order: By Definition, Population Control Cannot Be the Real Problem When the Creator Has Told Us to Be Fruitful and MultiplyPart IV (20:21 – 22:29)Will Medical Associations Backpedal from the Transgender Revolution? Money and Ideology are Driving the LGBTQ RevolutionPart V (22:29 – 23:14)The Transgender Revolution Rolls On? New Legislation in California Would Require Insurance Companies to Cover Female Medical Procedures That Are Biologically Impossible for MenPart VI (23:14 – 25:10)Another Woke Ruling in California: A 9th Circuit Ruling and Its Dissent Have Caused a Big ControversyOlympus Spa vs. Armstrong by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitPart VII (25:10 – 27:36)Rules For Nude Cruises? That Nudism is News Lays Bare Our Cultural MomentYes, there are nude cruises. An insider explains what you should know by USA Today (Nathan Diller)Nudist Camp for Sale: The Rise and Fall of the Florida Naturist Park by The New York Times (Ronda Kaysen)Sign up to receive The Briefing in your inbox every weekday morning.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.To write Dr. Mohler or submit a question for The Mailbox, go here.

Stu Burguiere breaks down the complicated and falsehood-riddled legacy of science alarmist Paul Ehrlich following his recent passing at age 93. Then, “The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show” co-host Buck Sexton joins to explain how the Left has burrowed so deeply into our minds and lives and, more importantly, how to get it out. And things are getting nasty between the Democrats in the Maine Senate primary campaign; Stu looks at a new ad from Governor Janet Mills. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On today's edition of The Editors, Rich, Charlie, Jim, and Noah discuss the latest news from Iran, the intra-right fights over the war, and Paul Ehrlich's sad legacy. Editors' Picks: Rich: Also Dan's recent piece Charlie: Dan's piece “The First American Liberation” Jim: Noah's pieces and posts about Iran Noah: Ramesh's post “Talarico's Nonbinary Nonsense” Light Items: Rich: World Baseball Classic Charlie: Self-driving cars Jim: High school robotics competition Noah: Basketball season is over Sponsors:Made InDonorsTrustVaer This podcast was edited and produced by Sarah Colleen Schutte. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Paul Ehrlich died he was a doomsayer from Stanford University whose every prediction didn't pan out. New fraud report completely redacted. Elk River hopes to fly the old state flag. Johnny Heidt with guitar news. Heard On The Show:Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan schools closed Tuesday due to threatening voicemailsPublic visitation, memorial service set for White Bear Lake soldier killed in Iran warWiles announces cancer diagnosis, plans to stay in jobSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In part one of Red Eye Radio with Gary McNamara and Eric Harley, we begin with the death of Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich who made his name as the author of “The Population Bomb,” a 1968 book that shaped the way many in his generation thought about demographics. He died on Friday at age 93, having lived long enough to see the world's population quadruple. His unrealistic prophecies never came true. Also WOKE Hollywood Oscar attendees leave the theatre littered with trash, actor Jerry O'Connell claims wife and daughters ‘became physical' after his comments about Kamala Harris losing to Trump, Iran's new Ayatollah reportedly gay (and according to President Trump now "badly disfigured") and the Democrat's DHS funding plan says "no ICE!" For more talk on the issues that matter to you, listen on radio stations across America Monday-Friday 12am-5am CT (1am-6am ET and 10pm-3am PT), download the RED EYE RADIO SHOW app, asking your smart speaker, or listening at RedEyeRadioShow.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We sat down with Matthew Thompson to discuss his forthcoming book: On Life Support: Eco-Dystopian Cinema in the Long 1970s. The book charts various environmentalisms in 1970s films, containment vs. contamination, that evolved out of the environmentalist work of the 1960s typified by Rachel Carson and Paul Ehrlich. Thompson's idea of "contamination" jockeys with the conceptual north star of recent ecocriticism: interconnectivity. This connects to an earlier episode we had with Steven Swarbrick and Jean-Thomas Tremblay on Negative Life: The Cinema of Extinction.   For more of Thompson:   Website: https://matthewithompson.com   ASLE EcoCast: If you have an idea for an episode, please submit your proposal here: https://forms.gle/Y1S1eP9yXxcNkgWHA   Twitter: @ASLE_EcoCast Lindsay Jolivette: @lin_jolivette Alex Tischer: @ak_tischer   If you're enjoying the show, please consider subscribing, sharing, and writing reviews on your favorite podcast platform(s)!   Episode recorded February 4, 2025 CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Welcome all to IS PHARMACOLOGY DIFFICULT Podcast! I am Dr Radhika VijayIt is the New Series! -"Quotes by Famous Scientists" in one minute daily for 30 days!In this episode, I will talk about quote by Paul Ehrlich The Podcast is for all- doctor, pharmacologist, med student, pharmacist and laymen interested in science of Pharmacology, drugs and medicinesMy podcast is featured in "TOP 20 PHARMACOLOGY PODCASTS"- Check the link here:https://podcast.feedspot.com/pharmacology_podcasts/My podcast is featured in " 40 BEST INDIA EDUCATION PODCASTS"- Check the link here:https://podcast.feedspot.com/india_education_podcasts/My podcast is featured in "BEST SCIENCE PODCASTS"- Check the link here:https://podcasts.feedspot.com/india_science_podcasts/My podcast is featured in "BEST INDIAN MEDICAL PODCASTS". Check the link here:https://podcasts.feedspot.com/india_medical_podcasts/?feedid=5503395For all the updates and latest episodes of my podcast, please visit www.ispharmacologydifficult.com where you can also sign up for a free monthly newsletter of mine."Pharmacology Further" E-Newsletter and Podcast:The links for these are at all my websites and specifically:Link for E-Newsletter: https://pharmacologyfurther.substack.com/Link for the E-Newsletter Podcast: https://www.pharmacologyfurther.comIt actually contains lot of updates about the medical sciences, drug information and my podcast updates also.You can follow me on different social media handles like twitter, insta, facebook and linkedin. They all are with same name "IS PHARMACOLOGY DIFFICULT". If you are listening for the first time, do follow me here, whatever platform you are consuming this episode, stay tuned, do rate and review on ITunes, Apple podcasts, stay safe, stay happy, stay enlightened, Thank you!!Please leave Review on Apple podcasts!My E-Newsletter sign up at Substack!Connect on Twitter & Instagram!My books on Amazon & Goodreads!

Vom qualvollen Tod zum Sieg der Medizin: Andrea Sawatzki erzählt die spannende Geschichte des Tetanus.

Das für die Überwachung der Impfstoffsicherheit zuständige Gremium im Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (PEI) hat angeblich über einen Zeitraum von mehr als drei Jahren – nämlich ausgerechnet während der massiven nationalen Corona-Impfkampagne – kein einziges Protokoll angelegt. Dies ergab meine Anfrage an die dem Gesundheitsministerium unterstellte Behörde. Die mir immerhin zugänglich gemachten PEI-Protokolle aus der Zeit vor und nach der vehement geführten Kampagne geben indes Hinweise auf vielfältige Alarmsignale hinsichtlich der Corona-Impfstoffe. Artikel: https://www.barucker.press/p/pei-keine-protokolle-pharmakovigilanz Eingesprochen von Adam Nümm: https://zeitenwechsel.org Weitere Produktionen ermöglichen: Paypal: info@bastian-barucker.de Bankverbindung: Bastian Barucker // GLS Bank // IBAN: DE02430609671115784701 // Betreff: Schenkung

Even before the publication of Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb in 1968, we heard warnings that humanity would be doomed to a future of famine, hunger and starvation unless industrial agriculture were unleashed to grow food as efficiently as possible in every nook and cranny of the world's arable lands to feed the “ten billion.” Those warnings continue today. But is it correct? In “The Enduring Fantasy of ‘Feeding the World',” a recent article in the journal Spectre, four members of the Agroecology Research-Action Collective challenge those who make this claim.  Join host Ronnie Lipschutz for a conversation about feeding the world with Dr. Adam Calo, Assistant Professor in the Geography, Planning and Environment group at Radboud University in the Netherlands, and Dr. Maywa Montenegro, Associate Professor of Agroecology and Critical Technology Studies in the UCSC Environmental Studies Department.

Im Rahmen eines von mir angestrengten presserechtlichen Eilverfahrens, in dem es um die vom Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (PEI) zurückgehaltenen Daten der SafeVac2.0-App geht, äußert sich die nach dem Arzneimittelgesetz für die Überwachung der Impfstoffsicherheit zuständige Behörde erstaunlich offen zu der Tatsache, dass ein aussagekräftiges Monitoring zu den Nebenwirkungen der Corona-Impfstoffe noch immer fehlt. Artikel: https://blog.bastian-barucker.de/paul-ehrlich-institut-gericht-corona-impfstoff/ Weitere Publikationen ermöglichen: https://blog.bastian-barucker.de/unterstuetzung/ Eingesprochen von Adam Nümm: https://zeitenwechsel.org

. We're visiting the graveyard of wrong, paying respects to the prophecies that were supposed to kill us all but instead just died of embarrassment. These aren't just oopsie-daisies; these are foundational myths of the modern fear-industrial complex. Our first headstone belongs to the granddaddy of them all, Paul Ehrlich. In 1968, this Stanford biologist dropped "The Population Bomb," which wasn't a B-side from a 60s psychedelic band but a prediction that the 1970s and 80s would see hundreds of millions starve to death. He said England probably wouldn't exist by the year whatever...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

«Das Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (PEI) verschleppt – mittlerweile gesetzeswidrig – die Veröffentlichung wichtiger Studiendaten. Das enorme öffentliche Interesse an einer Freigabe der Daten und zahlreiche weitere Alarmsignale, u.a. eine Antwort des Instituts vom 8. August 2025, veranlassten Rechtsanwältin Dr. Meyer-Hesselbarth zu diesem Schritt.» Von Bastian Barucker Artikel auf den Nachdenkseiten: https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=137952 Artikel auf meinem Blog: https://blog.bastian-barucker.de/eilantrag-hesselbarth-rohdaten-safevac2-0-app/

SafeVac-App: Warum werden amtliche Daten zur Impfstoffsicherheit geheim gehalten? von Lena Böllinger «Das Paul-Ehrlich-Institut lancierte im Dezember 2020 eine eigene Studie zur aktiven Überwachung der Sicherheit der Corona-Impfstoffe. Ergebnisse wurden aber bis heute nicht veröffentlicht. Die Behörde und das Bundesgesundheitsministerium mauern. Eine Juristin klagt seit Jahren auf Herausgabe der Daten.» Artikel: https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/safevac-daten-geheim Eingesprochen von Adam Nümm: https://zeitenwechsel.org Weitere Podcasts ermöglichen: https://blog.bastian-barucker.de/unterstuetzung/

Das Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (PEI) verschleppt – mittlerweile gesetzeswidrig – die Veröffentlichung wichtiger Studiendaten. Das enorme öffentliche Interesse an einer Freigabe der Daten und zahlreiche weitere Alarmsignale, u.a. eine Antwort des Instituts vom 8. August 2025, veranlassten Rechtsanwältin Dr. Meyer-Hesselbarth zu diesem Schritt. Von Bastian Barucker. Dieser Beitrag ist auch als Audio-Podcast verfügbar. DieWeiterlesen

My fellow pro-growth/progress/abundance Up Wingers,Global population growth is slowing, and it's not showing any signs of recovery. To the environmentalists of the 1970s, this may have seemed like a movement in the right direction. The drawbacks to population decline, however, are severe and numerous, and they're not all obvious.Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I talk with economist and demographer Dean Spears about the depopulation trend that is transcending cultural barriers and ushering in a new global reality. We discuss the costs to the economy and human progress, and the inherent value of more people.Spears is an associate professor of economics at Princeton University where he studies demography and development. He is also the founding executive director of r.i.c.e., a nonprofit research organization seeking to uplift children in rural northern India. He is a co-author with Michael Geruso of After the Spike: Population, Progress, and the Case for People.In This Episode* Where we're headed (1:32)* Pumping the breaks (5:41)* A pro-parenting culture (12:40)* A place for AI (19:13)* Preaching to the pro-natalist choir (23:40)* Quantity and quality of life (28:48)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. Where we're headed (1:32). . . two thirds of people now live in a country where the birth rate is below the two children per two adults level that would stabilize the population.Pethokoukis: Who are you and your co-author trying to persuade and what are you trying to persuade them of? Are you trying to persuade them that global depopulation is a real thing, that it's a problem? Are you trying to persuade them to have more kids? Are you trying to persuade them to support a certain set of pro-child or pro-natalist policies?Spears: We are trying to persuade quite a lot of people of two important things: One is that global depopulation is the most likely future — and what global depopulation means is that every decade, every generation, the world's population will shrink. That's the path that we're on. We're on that path because birth rates are low and falling almost everywhere. It's one thing we're trying to persuade people of, that fact, and we're trying to persuade people to engage with a question of whether global depopulation is a future to welcome or whether we should want something else to happen. Should we let depopulation happen by default or could it be better to stabilize the global population at some appropriate level instead?We fundamentally think that this is a question that a much broader section of society, of policy discourse, of academia should be talking about. We shouldn't just be leaving this discussion to the population scientists, demographic experts, not only to the people who already are worried about, or talking about low birth rates, but this is important enough and unprecedented enough that everybody should be engaging in this question. Whatever your ongoing values or commitments, there's a place for you in this conversation.Is it your impression that the general public is aware of this phenomenon? Or are they still stuck in the '70s thinking that population is running amok and we'll have 30 billion people on this planet like was the scenario in the famous film, Soylent Green? I feel like the people I know are sort of aware that this is happening. I don't know what your experience is.I think it's changing fast. I think more and more people are aware that birth rates are falling. I don't think that people are broadly aware — because when you hear it in the news, you might hear that birth rates in the United States have fallen low or birth rates in South Korea have fallen low. I think what not everybody knows is that two thirds of people now live in a country where the birth rate is below the two children per two adults level that would stabilize the population.I think people don't know that the world's birth rate has fallen from an average around five in 1950 to about 2.3 today, and that it's still falling and that people just haven't engaged with the thought that there's no special reason to expect it to stop and hold it to. But the same processes that have been bringing birth rates down will continue to bring them down, and people don't know that there's no real automatic stabilizer to expect it to come back up. Of the 26 countries that have had the lifetime birth rate fall below 1.9, none of them have had it go back up to two.That's a lot of facts that are not as widely known as they should be, but then the implication of it, that if the world's birth rate goes below two and stays there, we're going to have depopulation generation after generation. I think for a lot of people, they're still in the mindset that depopulation is almost conceptually impossible, that either we're going to have population growth or something else like zero population growth like people might've talked about in the '70s. But the idea that a growth rate of zero is just a number and then that it's not going to stop there, it's going to go negative, I think that's something that a lot of people just haven't thought about.Pumping the breaks (5:41)We wrote this book because we hope that there will be an alternative to depopulation society will choose, but there's no reason to expect or believe that it's going happen automatically.You said there's no automatic stabilizers — at first take, that sounds like we're going to zero. Is there a point where the global population does hit a stability point?No, that's just the thing.So we're going to zero?Well, “there's no automatic stabilizer” isn't the same thing as “we're definitely going to zero.” It could be that society comes together and decides to support parenting, invest more in the next generation, invest more in parents and families, and do more to help people choose to be parents. We wrote this book because we hope that there will be an alternative to depopulation society will choose, but there's no reason to expect or believe that it's going happen automatically. In no country where the birth rate has gone to two has it just magically stopped and held there forever.I think a biologist might say that the desire to reproduce, that's an evolved drive, and even if right now we're choosing to have smaller families, that biological urge doesn't vanish. We've had population, fertility rates, rise and fall throughout history — don't you think that there is some sort of natural stabilizer?We've had fluctuations throughout history, but those fluctuations have been around a pretty long and pretty widely-shared downward trend. Americans might be mostly only now hearing about falling birth rates because the US was sort of anomalous amongst richer countries and having a relatively flat period from the 1970s to around 2010 or so, whereas birth rates were falling in other countries, they weren't falling in the US in the same way, but they were falling in the US before then, they're falling in the US since then, and when you plot it over the long history with other countries, it's clear that, for the world as a whole, as long as we've had records, not just for decades, but for centuries, we've seen birth rates be falling. It's not just a new thing, it's a very long-term trend.It's a very widely-shared trend because humans are unlike other animals in the important way that we make decisions. We have culture, we have rationality, we have irrationality, we have all of these. The reason the population grew is because we've learned how to keep ourselves and our children alive. We learned how to implement sanitation, implement antibiotics, implement vaccines, and so more of the children who were born survived even as the birth rate was falling all along. Other animals don't do that. Other animals don't invent sanitation systems and antibiotics and so I think that we can't just reason immediately from other animal populations to what's going to happen to humans.I think one can make a plausible case that, even if you think that this is a problem — and again, it's a global problem, or a global phenomenon, advanced countries, less-advanced countries — that it is a phenomenon of such sweep that if you're going to say we need to stabilize or slow down, that it would take a set of policies of equal sweep to counter it. Do those actually exist?No. Nobody has a turnkey solution. There's nothing shovel-ready here. In fact, it's too early to be talking about policy solutions or “here's my piece of legislation, here's what the government should do” because we're just not there yet, both in terms of the democratic process of people understanding the situation and there even being a consensus that stabilization, at some level, would be better than depopulation, nor are we there yet on having any sort of answer that we can honestly recommend as being tested and known to be something that will reliably stabilize the population.I think the place to start is by having conversations like this one where we get people to engage with the evidence, and engage with the question, and just sort of move beyond a reflexive welcoming of depopulation by default and start thinking about, well, what are the costs of people and what are the benefits of people? Would we be better off in a future that isn't depopulating over the long run?The only concrete step I can think of us taking right now is adapting the social safety net to a new demographic reality. Beyond that, it seems like there might have to be a cultural shift of some kind, like a large-scale religious revival. Or maybe we all become so rich that we have more time on our hands and decide to have more kids. But do you think at some point someone will have a concrete solution to bring global fertility back up to 2.1 or 2.2?Look at it like this: The UN projects that the peak will be about six decades from now in 2084. Of course, I don't have a crystal ball, I don't know that it's going to be 2084, but let's take that six-decades timeline seriously because we're not talking about something that's going to happen next year or even next decade.But six decades ago, people were aware that — or at least leading scientists and even some policymakers were aware that climate change was a challenge. The original computations by Arrhenius of the radiative forcing were long before that. You have the Johnson speech to Congress, you have Nixon and the EPA. People were talking about climate change as a challenge six decades ago, but if somebody had gotten on their equivalent of a podcast and said, “What we need to do is immediately get rid of the internal combustion engine,” they would've been rightly laughed out of the room because that would've been the wrong policy solution at that time. That would've been jumping to the wrong solution. Instead, what we needed to do was what we've done, which is the science, the research, the social change that we're now at a place where emissions per person in the US have been falling for 20 years and we have technologies — wind, and solar, and batteries — that didn't exist before because there have been decades of working on it.So similarly, over the next six decades, let's build the research, build the science, build the social movement, discover things we don't know, more social science, more awareness, and future people will know more than you and I do about what might be constructive responses to this challenge, but only if we start talking about it now. It's not a crisis to panic about and do the first thing that comes to mind. This is a call to be more thoughtful about the future.A pro-parenting culture (12:40)The world's becoming more similar in this important way that the difference across countries and difference across societies is getting smaller as birth rates converge downward.But to be clear, you would like people to have more kids.I would like for us to get on a path where more people who want to be parents have the sort of support, and environment, and communities they need to be able to choose that. I would like people to be thinking about all of this when they make their family decisions. I'd like the rest of us to be thinking about this when we pitch in and do more to help us. I don't think that anybody's necessarily making the wrong decision for themselves if they look around and think that parenting is not for them or having more children is not for them, but I think we might all be making a mistake if we're not doing more to support parents or to recognize the stake we have in the next generation.But all those sorts of individual decisions that seem right for an individual or for a couple, combined, might turn into a societal decision.Absolutely. I'm an economics professor. We call this “externalities,” where there are social benefits of something that are different from the private costs and benefits. If I decide that I want to drive and I contribute to traffic congestion, then that's an externality. At least in principle, we understand what to do about that: You share the cost, you share the benefits, you help the people internalize the social decision.It's tied up in the fact that we have a society where some people we think of as doing care work and some people we think of as doing important work. So we've loaded all of these costs of making the next generation on people during the years of their parenting and especially on women and mothers. It's understandable that, from a strictly economic point of view, somebody looks at that and thinks, “The private costs are greater than the private benefits. I'm not going to do that.” It's not my position to tell somebody that they're wrong about that. What you do in a situation like that is share and lighten that burden. If there's a social reason to solve traffic congestion, then you solve it with public policy over the long run. If the social benefits of there being a flourishing next generation are greater than people are finding in their own decision making, then we need to find the ways to invest in families, invest in parenting, lift and share those burdens so that people feel like they can choose to be parents.I would think there's a cultural component here. I am reminded of a book by Jonathan Last about this very issue in which he talks about Old Town Alexandria here in Virginia, how, if you go to Old Town, you can find lots of stores selling stuff for dogs, but if you want to buy a baby carriage, you can't find anything.Of course, that's an equilibrium outcome, but go on.If we see a young couple pushing a stroller down the street and inside they have a Chihuahua — as society, or you personally, would you see that and “Think that's wrong. That seems like a young couple living in a nice area, probably have plenty of dough, they can afford daycare, and yet they're still not going to have a kid and they're pushing a dog around a stroller?” Should we view that as something's gone wrong with our society?My own research is about India. My book's co-authored with Mike Geruso. He studies the United States more. I'm more of an expert on India.Paul Ehrlich, of course, begins his book, The Population Bomb, in India.Yes, I know. He starts with this feeling of being too crowded with too many people. I say in the book that I almost wonder if I know the exact spot where he has that experience. I think it's where one of my favorite shops are for buying scales and measuring tape for measuring the health of children in Uttar Pradesh. But I digress about Paul Ehrlich.India now, where Paul Ehrlich was worried about overpopulation, is now a society with an average birth rate below two kids per two adults. Even Uttar Pradesh, the big, disadvantaged, poor state where I do my work in research, the average young woman there says that they want an average of 1.9 children. This is a place where society and culture is pretty different from the United States. In the US, we're very accustomed to this story of work and family conflict, and career conflicts, especially for women, and that's probably very important in a lot of people's lives. But that's not what's going on in India where female labor force participation is pretty low. Or you hear questions about whether this is about the decline of religiosity, but India is a place where religion is still very important to a lot of people's lives. Marriage is almost universal. Marriage happens early. People start their childbearing careers in their early twenties, and you still see people having an average below two kids. They start childbearing young and they end childbearing young.Similarly, in Latin America, where religiosity, at least as reported in surveys, remains pretty high, but Latin America is at an average of 1.8, and it's not because people are delaying fertility until they're too old to get pregnant. You see a lot of people having permanent contraception surgery, tubal obligations.And so this cultural story where people aren't getting married, they're starting too late, they're putting careers first, it doesn't match the worldwide diversity. These diverse societies we're seeing are all converging towards low birth rates. The world's becoming more similar in this important way that the difference across countries and difference across societies is getting smaller as birth rates converge downward. So I don't think we can easily point towards any one cultural for this long-term and widely shared trend.A place for AI (19:13)If AI in the future is a compliment to what humans produce . . . if AI is making us more productive, then it's all the bigger loss to have fewer people.At least from an economic perspective, I think you can make the case: fewer people, less strain on resources, you're worried about workers, AI-powered robots are going to be doing a lot of work, and if you're worried about fewer scientists, the scientists we do have are going to have AI-powered research assistants.Which makes the scientists more important. Many technologies over history have been compliments to what humans do, not substitutes. If AI in the future is a compliment to what humans produce — scientific research or just the learning by doing that people do whenever they're engaging in an enterprise or trying to create something — if AI is making us more productive, then it's all the bigger loss to have fewer people.To me, the best of both worlds would be to have even more scientists plus AI. But isn't the fear of too few people causing a labor shortage sort of offset by AI and robotics? Maybe we'll have plenty of technology and capital to supply the workers we do have. If that's not the worry, maybe the worry is that the human experience is simply worse when there are fewer children around.You used the term “plenty of,” and I think that sort of assumes that there's a “good enough,” and I want to push back on that because I think what matters is to continue to make progress towards higher living standards, towards poverty alleviation, towards longer, better, healthier, safer, richer lives. What matters is whether we're making as much progress as we could towards an abundant, rich, safe, healthy future. I think we shouldn't let ourselves sloppily accept a concept of “good enough.” If we're not making the sort of progress that we could towards better lives, then that's a loss, and that matters for people all around the world.We're better off for living in a world with other people. Other people are win-win: Their lives are good for them and their lives are good for you. Part of that, as you say, is people on the supply side of the economy, people having the ideas and the realizations that then can get shared over and over again. The fact that ideas are this non-depletable resource that don't get used up but might never be discovered if there aren't people to discover them. That's one reason people are important on the supply side of the economy, but other people are also good for you on the demand side of the economy.This is very surprising because people think that other people are eating your slice of the pie, and if there are more other people, there's less for me. But you have to ask yourself, why does the pie exist in the first place? Why is it worth some baker's while to bake a pie that I could get a slice of? And that's because there were enough people wanting slices of pie to make it worth paying the fixed costs of having a bakery and baking a whole pie.In other words, you're made better off when other people want and need the same things that you want and need because that makes it more likely for it to exist. If you have some sort of specialized medical need and need specialized care, you're going to be more likely to find it in a city where there are more other people than in a less-populated rural place, and you're going to be more likely to find it in a course of history where there have been more other people who have had the same medical need that you do so that it's been worthwhile for some sort of cure to exist. The goodness of other people for you isn't just when they're creating things, it's also when they're just needing the same things that you do.And, of course, if you think that getting to live a good life is a good thing, that there's something valuable about being around to have good experiences, that a world of more people having good experiences has more goodness in it than a world of fewer people having good experiences in it. That's one thing that counts, and it's one important consideration for why a stabilized future might be better than a depopulating future. Now, I don't expect everyone to immediately agree with that, but I do think that the likelihood of depopulation should prompt us to ask that question.Preaching to the pro-natalist choir (23:40)If you are already persuaded listening to this, then go strike up a conversation with somebody.Now, listening to what you just said, which I thought was fantastic, you're a great explainer, that is wonderful stuff — but I couldn't help but think, as you explained that, that you end up spending a lot of time with people who, because they read the New York Times, they may understand that the '70s population fears aren't going to happen, that we're not going to have a population of 30 billion that we're going to hit, I don't know, 10 billion in the 2060s and then go down. And they think, “Well, that's great.”You have to spend a lot of time explaining to them about the potential downsides and why people are good, when like half the population in this country already gets it: “You say ‘depopulation,' you had us at the word, ‘depopulation.'” You have all these people who are on the right who already think that — a lot of people I know, they're there.Is your book an effective tool to build on that foundation who already think it's an issue, are open to policy ideas, does your book build on that or offer anything to those people?I think that, even if this is something that people have thought about before, a lot of how people have thought about it is in terms of pension plans, the government's budget, the age structure, the nearer-term balance of workers to retirees.There's plenty of people on the right who maybe they're aware of those things, but also think that it really is kind of a The Children of Men argument. They just think a world with more children is better. A world where the playgrounds are alive is better — and yes, that also may help us with social security, but there's a lot of people for whom you don't have to even make that economic argument. That seems to me that that would be a powerful team of evangelists — and I mean it in a nonreligious way — evangelists for your idea that population is declining and there are going to be some serious side effects.If you are already persuaded listening to this, then go strike up a conversation with somebody. That's what we want to have happen. I think minds are going to be changed in small batches on this one. So if you're somebody who already thinks this way, then I encourage you to go out there and start a conversation. I think not everybody, even people who think about population for a living — for example, one of the things that we engage with in the book is the philosophy of population ethics, or population in social welfare as economists might talk about it.There have been big debates there over should we care about average wellbeing? Should we care about total wellbeing? Part of what we're trying to say in the book is, one, we think that some of those debates have been misplaced or are asking what we don't think are the right questions, but also to draw people to what we can learn from thinking of where questions like this agree. Because this whole question of should we make the future better in total or make the better on average is sort of presuming this Ehrlich-style mindset that if the future is more populous, then it must be worse for each. But once you see that a future that's more populous is also more prosperous, it'd be better in total and better on average, then a lot of these debates might still have academic interest, but both ways of thinking about what would be a better future agree.So there are these pockets of people out there who have thought about this before, and part of what we're trying to do is bring them together in a unified conversation where we're talking about the climate modeling, we're talking about the economics, we're talking about the philosophy, we're talking about the importance of gender equity and reproductive freedom, and showing that you can think and care about all of these things and still think that a stabilized future might be better than depopulation.In the think tank world, the dream is to have an idea and then some presidential candidate adopts the idea and pushes it forward. There's a decent chance that the 2028 Republican nominee is already really worried about this issue, maybe someone like JD Vance. Wouldn't that be helpful for you?I've never spoken with JD Vance, but from my point of view, I would also be excited for India's population to stabilize and not depopulate. I don't see this as an “America First” issue because it isn't an America First issue. It's a worldwide, broadly-shared phenomenon. I think that no one country is going to be able to solve this all on its own because, if nothing else, people move, people immigrate, societies influence one another. I think it's really a broadly-shared issue.Quantity and quality of life (28:48)What I do feel confident about is that some stabilized size would be better than depopulation generation after generation, after generation, after generation, without any sort of leveling out, and I think that's the plan that we're on by default.Can you imagine an earth of 10 to 12 billion people at a sustained level being a great place to live, where everybody is doing far better than they are today, the poorest countries are doing better — can you imagine that scenario? Can you also imagine a scenario where we have a world of three to four billion, which is a way nicer place to live for everybody than it is today? Can both those scenarios happen?I don't see any reason to think that either of those couldn't be an equilibrium, depending on all the various policy choices and all the various . . .This is a very broad question.Exactly. I think it's way beyond the social science, economics, climate science we have right now to say “three billion is the optimal size, 10 billion is the optimal size, eight billion is the optimal size.” What I do feel confident about is that some stabilized size would be better than depopulation generation after generation, after generation, after generation, without any sort of leveling out, and I think that's the plan that we're on by default. That doesn't mean it's what's going to happen, I hope it's not what happens, and that's sort of the point of the conversation here to get more people to consider that.But let's say we were able to stabilize the population at 11 billion. That would be fine.It could be depending on what the people do.But I'm talking about a world of 11 billion, and I'm talking about a world where the average person in India is as wealthy as, let's say this is in the year 2080, 2090, and at minimum, the average person in India is as wealthy as the average American is today. So that's a big huge jump in wealth and, of course, environmentalism.And we make responsible environmental choices, whether that's wind, or solar, or nuclear, or whatever, I'm not going to be prescriptive on that, but I don't see any reason why not. My hope is that future people will know more about that question than I do. Ehrlich would've said that our present world of eight billion would be impossible, that we would've starved long before this, that England would've ceased to exist, I think is a prediction in his book somewhere.And there's more food per person on every continent. Even in the couple decades that I've been going to India, children are taller than they used to be, on average. You can measure it, and maybe I'm fooling myself, but I feel like I can see it. Even as the world's been growing more populous, people have been getting better off, poverty has been going down, the absolute number of people in extreme poverty has been going down, even as the world's been getting more populous. As I say, emissions per person have been going down in a lot of places.I don't see any in principle, reason, if people make the right decisions, that we couldn't have a sustainable, healthy, and good, large sustained population. I've got two kids and they didn't add to the hole in the ozone layer, which I would've heard about in school as a big problem in the '80s. They didn't add to acid rain. Why not? Because the hole in the ozone layer was confronted with the Montreal Protocol. The acid rain was confronted with the Clean Air Act. They don't drive around in cars with leaded gasoline because in the '70s, the gasoline was unleaded. Adding more people doesn't have to make things worse. It depends on what happens. Again, I hope future people will know more about this than I do, but I don't see any, in principle reason why we couldn't stabilize at a size larger than today and have it be a healthy, and sustainable, and flourishing society.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were PromisedMicro Reads▶ Economics* Generative AI's Impact on Student Achievement and Implications for Worker Productivity - SSRN* The Real China Model: Beijing's Enduring Formula for Wealth and Power - FA* What Matters More to the Stock Market? The Fed or Nvidia? - NYT* AI Isn't Really Stealing Jobs Yet. That Doesn't Mean We're Ready for It. - Barron's* Trump's Attacks on the Fed and BLS Threaten Key Source of Economic Strength - NYT* A Stock Market Crash Foretold - PS* The Macro Impact of AI on GDP - The Overshoot* Powell Sends Strongest Signal Yet That Interest Rate Cuts Are Coming - NYT* Big Announcements, Small Results: FDI Falls Yet Again - ITIF▶ Business* An MIT report that 95% of AI pilots fail spooked investors. But the reason why those pilots failed is what should make the C-suite anxious - Fortune* Alexandr Wang is now leading Meta's AI dream team. Will Mark Zuckerberg's big bet pay off? - Fortune* Amazon is betting on agents to win the AI race - The Verge* Intuit Earnings Beat Estimates as Company Focuses on Artificial Intelligence Growth Drivers - Barron's* Will Tesla Robotaxis Kill Auto Insurers? Hardly. - Barron's* Wall Street Is Too Complex to Be Left to Humans - Bberg Opinion* Meta Freezes AI Hiring After Blockbuster Spending Spree - WSJ* Trump Is Betting Big on Intel. Will the Chips Fall His Way? - Wired* Trump Says Intel Has Agreed to Give the US 10% Equity Stake - Bberg▶ Policy/Politics* Poll shows California policy influencers want harsher social media laws than voters - Politico* How Trump Will Decide Which Chips Act Companies Must Give Up Equity - WSJ* This Democrat Thinks Voters Seeking Order Will Make or Break Elections - WSJ* California Republicans trust tech companies as much as Trump on AI - Politico* The Japanese city betting on immigrants to breathe life into its economy - FT▶ AI/Digital* AI Is Designing Bizarre New Physics Experiments That Actually Work - Wired* Generative AI in Higher Education: Evidence from an Elite College - SSRN* AI Unveils a Major Discovery in Ancient Microbes That Could Hold the Key to Next Generation Antibiotics - The Debrief* A.I. May Be Just Kind of Ordinary - NYT Opinion* Is the AI bubble about to pop? Sam Altman is prepared either way. - Ars* China's DeepSeek quietly releases an open-source rival to GPT-5—optimized for Chinese chips and priced to undercut OpenAI - Fortune* The world should prepare for the looming quantum era - FT* Brace for a crash before the golden age of AI - FT* How AI will change the browser wars - FT* Can We Tell if ChatGPT is a Parasite? Studying Human-AI Symbiosis with Game Theory - Arxiv* Apple Explores Using Google Gemini AI to Power Revamped Siri - Bberg* The AI Doomers Are Getting Doomier - The Atlantic* State of AI in Business 2025 - MIT NANDA* Silicon Valley Is Drifting Out of Touch With the Rest of America - NYT Opinion* What Workers Really Want from Artificial Intelligence - Stanford HAI▶ Biotech/Health* A 1990 Measles Outbreak Shows How the Disease Can Roar Back - NYT* Corporate egg freezing won't break the glass ceiling - FT* How to Vaccinate the World - Asterisk* COVID Revisionism Has Gone Too Far - MSN* Securing America's Pharmaceutical Innovation Edge - JAMA Forum▶ Clean Energy/Climate* Trump's Global War on Decarbonization - PS* Aalo Atomics secures funding to build its first reactor - WNN* Trump's nuclear policy favors startups, widening industry rifts - E&E* How Electricity Got So Expensive - Heatmap* Nuclear fusion gets a boost from a controversial debunked experiment - NS* Google Wants You to Know the Environmental Cost of Quizzing Its AI - WSJ* Trump Blamed Rising Electricity Prices on Renewables. It's Not True. - Heatmap* Trump's Cuts May Spell the End for America's Only Antarctic Research Ship - NYT* How Bill McKibben Lost the Plot - The New Atlantis* Does it make sense for America to keep subsidising a sinking city? - Economist▶ Robotics/Drones/AVs* I'm a cyclist. Will the arrival of robotaxis make my journeys safer? - NS* Si chiplet–controlled 3D modular microrobots with smart communication in natural aqueous environments - Science▶ Space/Transportation* On the ground in Ukraine's largest Starlink repair shop - MIT* Trump can't stop America from building cheap EVs - Vox* SpaceX has built the machine to build the machine. But what about the machine? - Ars* 'Invasion' Season 3 showrunner Simon Kinberg on creating ''War of the Worlds' meets 'Babel'' (exclusive) - Space▶ Up Wing/Down Wing* The era of the public apology is ending - Axios* Warren Brodey, 101, Dies; a Visionary at the Dawn of the Information Age - NYT* Reality is evil - Aeon* The Case for Crazy Philanthropy - Palladium▶ Substacks/Newsletters* Claude Code is growing crazy fast, and it's not just for writing code - AI Supremacy* No, ‘the Economists' Didn't Botch Trump's Tariffs - The Dispatch* How Does the US Use Water? - Construction Physics* A Climate-Related Financial Risk Boondoggle - The Ecomodernist* What's up with the States? - Hyperdimensional▶ Social Media* On why AI won't take all the jobs - @Dan_Jeffries1* On four nuclear reactors to be built in Amarillo, TX - @NuclearHazelnut* On AI welfare and consciousness - @sebkrier Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

A inteligência artificial pode melhorar os tratamentos oncológicos? A especialista Leonor Matos e Rui Maria Pêgo olham para o futuro e tentam antecipar as respostas da Ciência.O cancro afeta mais de 20 milhões de pessoas por ano e é uma das principais causas de morte, em todo o mundo. E os números não páram de crescer. Com os olhos postos no futuro, médicos e investigadores procuram, cada vez mais, soluções inovadoras na abordagem da doença.Leonor Matos percorre a evolução dos tratamentos, desde a descoberta da radioterapia de Marie Curie e do conceito de ‘bala mágica' de Paul Ehrlich, o pai da quimioterapia, até à revolução da oncologia de precisão, nos anos 90. A conversa explora avanços recentes, como a imunoterapia – distinguida com o Prémio Nobel em 2018 –, o alcance da biópsia líquida ou o impacto crescente da Inteligência Artificial no diagnóstico e personalização dos tratamentos. Neste que é o último de quatro episódios dedicados ao cancro, a dupla destaca ainda a importância dos ensaios clínicos e do apoio à investigação científica, apontando as respostas e desafios que existem em Portugal no acesso à inovação.Assista a este episódio do [IN]Pertinente e descubra que o futuro já começou.REFERÊNCIAS E LINKS ÚTEISMukherjee, Siddhartha, «O Imperador de Todos os Males - Uma biografia do cancro» (Bertrand Editora, 2012) «Inovação e Investigação em Portugal», União Europeia White Paper «Inteligência Artificial na Saúde em Portugal, Regulamentação, Impactos e Perspetivas de Futuro» (Fevereiro, 2025) Projeto «Cinderella» «Zavatar Project»  «A.I. Inteligência Artificial» (Steven Spielberg, 2001)«Living Proof, Experiência de Uma Vida» (Dan Ireland, 2008)BIOSLEONOR MATOSMédica oncologista e investigadora, trabalha na Fundação Champalimaud, onde se dedica ao tratamento do Cancro de Mama, integrando também o grupo de investigação em qualidade de vida e exercício físico. É assistente convidada e orientadora de alunos do mestrado em Exercício e Saúde da Faculdade de Motricidade Humana. Lidera ensaios clínicos na área do cancro de mama.RUI MARIA PÊGOTem 36 anos, 17 deles passados entre a rádio, o teatro e a televisão. Licenciado em História pela Universidade Nova de Lisboa, e mestre em Fine Arts in Professional Acting pela Bristol Old Vic Theatre School. Já apresentou programas nos três canais generalistas de televisão, é autor da série satírica «Filho da Mãe» (Canal Q, 2015),  e está hoje na Rádio Comercial, com o podcast «Debaixo da Língua».

Heute vor 110 Jahren starb Paul Ehrlich – der Chemiker, Arzt, und Immunologe jüdischer Herkunft gewann den Nobelpreis und rettete mit seinen Entdeckungen das Leben vieler Menschen.

Simon & Schuster provided me with an advanced copy of the superb book After the Spike: Population, Progress, and the Case for People, scheduled for release on July 8, 2025. The University of Texas authors, Dean Spears and Michael Geruso, have written a mind-blowing book! It's my second favorite book of 2025! My favorite 2025 book is They're Not Gaslighting You. Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-JfpjJRkok Podcast   The Population Whimper When I was born, Paul R. Ehrlich's book, The Population Bomb, was a mega-bestseller. Although I never read the book, my generation believed the book's message that humanity is dangerously overpopulated. The book gave me one major reason not to have children. The book made intuitive sense, built on Thomas Malthus's observations, that if our population continues to expand, we will eventually hit a brick wall. However, Ehrlich, a Stanford biologist, made these stunningly wrong predictions in The Population Bomb: Mass Starvation in the 1970s and 1980s: The book opened with the statement, "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s, hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now."    England's Demise by 2000: He suggested that England would not exist by the year 2000 due to environmental collapse related to overpopulation.   Devastation of Fish Populations by 1990: He predicted that all significant animal life in the sea would be extinct by 1990, and large areas of coastline would need to be evacuated due to the stench of dead fish.   India's Famine: He predicted catastrophic food shortages in India in the 1990s that did not materialize.   United States Food Rationing by 1984: He envisioned the U.S. rationing food by 1984. Instead of all this doom and gloom, here's what happened: we went from 3.5 billion (when Ehrich wrote his doomsday book) to 8 billion people today, most of whom are fat. Today, our biggest problem isn't famine but obesity. Dean Spears and Michael Geruso's new book should have been called The Population Whimper because it says the opposite of what The Population Bomb said. Forget a catastrophic demographic explosion. We're going to suffer a catastrophic demographic implosion. The graph on the cover of After the Spike sums up the problem: during a 200-year time period, the human population will have spiked to 10 billion and then experienced an equally dramatic fall. Three criticisms of After the Spike For a book packed with counterintuitive arguments, it's remarkable that I can only spot three flaws. Admittedly, these are minor critiques, as they will disappear if we stabilize below 10 billion. 1. Wildlife lost The authors correctly argue that the environment has been improving even as the human population has been growing rapidly. For example: Air and water are now cleaner than they were 50 years ago, when the population was half its current size. Our per capita CO2 consumption is falling. Clean energy production is at an all-time high. There's one metric that authors overlooked: wildlife. As the human population doubled, we've needed more space for growing food. This has led to a decrease in habitat, which is why biologists refer to the Anthropocene Extinction. While fish farms are efficient, overfishing continues. The Amazon gets denuded to make space for soy and cattle plantations. The loss of African wildlife habitats is acute, as the African population is projected to quadruple in this century. I imagine that the authors of After the Spike would counter: National parks didn't exist 200 years ago. Green revolutions and GMO foods have made the most productive farmers ever. De-extinction may restore extinct species. And they're correct. There are bright spots.  However, as we approach 10 billion, wildlife will continue to suffer and be marginalized. The book should have mentioned that. Dean Spears and Michael Geruso would likely agree that if humans continue to grow nonstop, wildlife will continue to suffer. However, they aren't arguing for nonstop human expansion. They want stabilization. When you combine stabilization with technology (e.g., vertical farming and lab-grown animal products), we would reverse the downward trend in wildlife habitat. 2. Increased energy consumption Dean Spears and Michael Geruso celebrate humanity's progress in energy efficiency and productivity. However, they overlook these facts: 1. The Rebound Effect (Jevons Paradox): As energy efficiency improves, the cost of using energy services effectively decreases. This can lead to: Increased usage of existing services: For example, more efficient air conditioners might lead people to cool their homes to lower temperatures or for longer periods. More fuel-efficient cars might encourage more driving. Adoption of new energy-intensive activities: The increased affordability of energy services can enable entirely new consumption patterns that were previously too expensive to adopt. Think about the proliferation of data centers for AI and digital services, or the growth of electric vehicles. While individual electric vehicles (EVs) are more efficient than gasoline cars, the rapid increase in their adoption contributes to overall electricity demand. 2. Economic Growth and Rising Living Standards: Increased demand for energy services: As economies grow and incomes rise, people generally desire greater comfort, convenience, and a wider range of goods and services. This translates to greater demand for heating and cooling, larger homes, more personal transportation, more manufactured goods, and more leisure activities, all of which require energy. Industrialization and urbanization: Developing economies, in particular, are undergoing rapid industrialization and urbanization. This involves massive construction, increased manufacturing, and the expansion of infrastructure, all of which are highly energy-intensive. Even with efficiency gains, the sheer scale of this growth drives up overall energy consumption. Emerging technologies: The growth of data centers, AI, and other digital technologies is leading to a significant increase in electricity demand. 3. Population Growth: While efficiency might improve per unit of output, the overall global population continues to grow. More people, even if individually more efficient, will inherently consume more energy in total. 4. Shifting Economic Structures: Some economies are shifting from less energy-intensive sectors (like agriculture) to more energy-intensive ones (like manufacturing or specific services). Even within industries, while individual processes might become more efficient, the overall scale of production can increase dramatically. 5. Energy Price and Policy Factors: Low energy prices: If energy remains relatively inexpensive (due to subsidies or abundant supply), the incentive for significant behavioral changes to reduce consumption might be diminished, even with efficient technologies available. Policy limitations: Although many countries have energy efficiency policies, their impact may be offset by other factors that drive demand. Conclusion: While technological advancements and efficiency measures reduce the energy intensity of specific activities, these gains are often outpaced by the aggregate increase in demand for energy services driven by economic growth, rising living standards, population increases, and the adoption of new, energy-intensive technologies and behaviors. The challenge lies in achieving a proper decoupling of economic growth from energy consumption, and ultimately, from carbon emissions. Humanity's per capita energy consumption has been steadily increasing with each passing century, a trend that is unlikely to change soon. Therefore, humans of the 26th century will consume far more energy than those of the 21st century.  The authors of After the Spike would probably argue that in 2525, we'll be using a clean energy source (e.g., nuclear fusion), so it'll be irrelevant that our per capita energy consumption increases ten times.  Again, short term, we're going in the wrong direction. However, in a stabilized world, we won't have a problem. 3. Designer babies The authors of After the Spike never addressed the potential impact that designer babies may have. I coined the term "Homo-enhanced" to address our desire to overcome our biological limitations.  Couples are already using IVF to select the gender and eye color of their babies. Soon, we'll be able to edit and select for more complex traits such as height or even intelligence. It's easy to imagine a world like Gattaca, where parents collaborate with CRISPR-powered gene tools to create custom-made babies. One reason some people don't want to reproduce is that it's a crap shoot. Any parent who has more than one child will tell you that each of their children is quite different from the others. Given that they grow up in the same environment, it suggests that genetics is a decisive factor. Until now, we couldn't mold our children's DNA. Soon, we will.  If we were to remove the lottery aspect of having a child and allow parents to design their children, perhaps there would be a baby boom. Dean Spears and Michael Geruso would probably argue that this is unlikely or centuries away from happening. We'll be descending the steep population slope long before we are homo-enhanced. One trillion humans in this millennium? In the Bulgaria chapter of The Hidden Europe, I observed that Bulgaria is depopulating faster than any other European country. Having peaked at 9 million in the late 1980s, a century later, it will be half that size. Despite that, in that chapter, I predicted that in 500 years, we'll have one trillion humans in the solar system, with at least 100 billion on Earth. This video explains how and why that may happen:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lJJ_QqIVnc Conclusion In 2075, will After the Spike: Population, Progress, and the Case for People look as stupid as The Population Bomb looks 50 years after publication? Does After the Spike make the same errors as The Population Bomb? Paul Ehrlich's underestimated technology and the continued collapse in fertility rates. As Dean Spears and Michael Geruso point out, fertility rates have been declining since they were first measured. Had Ehrlich extrapolated the trendline, he would have realized that our demographic collapse was imminent, not an explosion. Furthermore, technology solved many of the problems Ehrlich imagined. Is After the Spike making the same error? Fertility rates won't fall forever. They must stop. Otherwise, we'll become extinct. However, will fertility rates soar due to technology or some other reason? What could make our fertility rates return to three or more? Here are a few ideas: We master fusion energy, providing us with ultra-cheap energy and dramatically decreasing the cost of having children. Robots perform most jobs, leaving humans with ample time to raise large families.  As the negative effects of depopulation start rippling across the world, a global cultural panic erupts, prompting people to prioritize reproduction. Homo-enhanced humans, merged with artificial general intelligence, decide to proliferate to dominate the planet. Vertical farms and lab-grown cultured meat improve the environment so dramatically that humans feel less guilty about having three or more children, and generous subsidies offset the costs. Admittedly, these scenarios are unlikely to occur during the next 50 years, so After the Spike won't become the joke that The Population Bomb became in 50 years. Still, I predict that Ehrlich's great-great-granddaughter will write The Population Bomb II: Thomas Malthus Will Be Right Someday. Verdict 10 out of 10 stars! Excerpts The excerpts below are from an advanced copy, which may have undergone edits. Hence, some of these excerpts may have been reworded or deleted in the final print. The reason I am quoting them is that even if the excerpts are removed in the final edition, they illustrate the book's overall message.  It would be easy to think that fewer people would be better—better for the planet, better for the people who remain. This book asks you to think again. Depopulation is not the solution we urgently need for environmental challenges, nor will it raise living standards by dividing what the world can offer across fewer of us. Despite what you may have been told, depopulation is not the solution we urgently need for environmental challenges like climate change. Nor will it raise living standards by dividing what the world can offer across fewer of us. To the contrary, so much of the progress that we now take for granted sprang up in a large and interconnected society. Part I's big claim: No future is more likely than that people worldwide choose to have too few children to replace their own generation. Over the long run, this would cause exponential population decline. Whether depopulation would be good or bad depends on the facts and depends on our values. We ask about those facts and values, building up to an overall assessment: Part II and Part III's big claim: A stabilized world population would be better, overall, than a depopulating future. Part IV's big claim: Nobody yet knows how to stabilize a depopulating world. But humanity has made revolutionary improvements to society before— we can do it again if we choose. We won't ask you to abandon your concerns about climate change; about reproductive freedom and abortion access; or about ensuring safe, healthy, flourishing lives for everyone everywhere. We won't ask you to consider even an inch of backsliding on humanity's progress toward gender equity. We insist throughout that everyone should have the tools to choose to parent or not to parent. This book is not about whether or how you should parent. It's about whether we all should make parenting easier. In 2012, 146 million children were born. That was more than in any year of history to that point. It was also more than in any year since. Millions fewer will be born this year. The year 2012 may well turn out to be the year in which the most humans were ever born— ever as in ever for as long as humanity exists. Within three hundred years, a peak population of 10 billion could fall below 2 billion. The tip of the Spike may be six decades from today. For every 205 babies born, human biology, it turns out, would produce about 100 females. Average fertility in Europe today is about 1.5. That means the next generation will be 25 percent smaller than the last. Birth rates were falling all along. For as long as any reliable records exist, and for at least several hundred years while the Spike was ascending, the average number of births per woman has been falling, generation by generation. In the United States in the early 1800s, married white women (a population for whom some data were recorded) gave birth an average of seven times. If life expectancy doubles to 150 years, or quadruples to 300 years, couldn't that prevent the depopulating edge of the Spike? The surprising answer is no. The story of the Spike would stay the same, even if life expectancy quadrupled to three hundred years. In contrast, if adults' reproductive spans also changed, so people had, say, one or two babies on average over their twenties, thirties, and forties and then another one on average over their fifties, sixties, and seventies, then that would stop depopulation— but it would be because births changed, not because later-adulthood deaths changed. Where exactly should humanity stabilize? Six billion? Eight? Ten? Some other number? This book makes the case to stabilize somewhere. Exactly where will have to be a question for public and scientific debate. So the extra greenhouse gas emissions contributed by the larger population would be small, even under the assumption here that the future is bleak and we go on emitting for another century. The environmental costs of a new child are not zero. Not by a long shot. Not yet. But they are falling. Each new person who joins the ranks of humanity will add less CO2 than, well, you over your lifetime. Humanity could choose a future that's good, free, and fair for women and that also has an average birth rate of two. There is no inescapable dilemma. In that kind of future, people who want to parent would get the support that they need (from nonparents, from taxpayers, from everyone) to choose parenting. The most plausible way humanity might stabilize— and the only way this book endorses— is if societies everywhere work to make parenting better. Globally, we now produce about 50 percent more food per person than in 1961. “endogenous economic growth.” Endogenous means “created from the inside.” Ideas do not come from outside the economy. They come from us. Because scale matters, a depopulating planet will be able to fill fewer niches. A threat with a fixed cost: A threat has arisen that will kill all humans (however many) unless a large cost is paid to escape it (such as by deflecting an asteroid) within a certain time period. Could a kajillion lives ever be the best plan? That question goes beyond the practical question that this book is here to answer. Between our two families, we have had three live births, four miscarriages, and three failed IVF rounds. Parenting will need to become better than it is today. That's what we, your authors, hope and believe. The opportunity cost hypothesis: Spending time on parenting means giving up something. Because the world has improved around us, that “something” is better than it used to be. In no case is there evidence that more support for parents predicts more births. Nobody— no expert, no theory— fully understands why birth rates, everywhere, in different cultures and contexts, are lower than ever before. I hope these excerpts compel you to buy the book. If you're still undecided, consider that the book features numerous graphs and illustrations that will rewire your brain. Buy After the Spike: Population, Progress, and the Case for People. Connect Send me an anonymous voicemail at SpeakPipe.com/FTapon You can post comments, ask questions, and sign up for my newsletter at https://wanderlearn.com. If you like this podcast, subscribe and share!  On social media, my username is always FTapon. Connect with me on: Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram TikTok LinkedIn Pinterest Tumblr   Sponsors 1. My Patrons sponsored this show! Claim your monthly reward by becoming a patron for as little as $2/month at https://Patreon.com/FTapon 2. For the best travel credit card, get one of the Chase Sapphire cards and get 75-100k bonus miles! 3. Get $5 when you sign up for Roamless, my favorite global eSIM! Use code LR32K 4. Get 25% off when you sign up for Trusted Housesitters, a site that helps you find sitters or homes to sit in. 5. Start your podcast with my company, Podbean, and get one month free! 6. In the United States, I recommend trading cryptocurrency with Kraken.  7. Outside the USA, trade crypto with Binance and get 5% off your trading fees! 8. For backpacking gear, buy from Gossamer Gear.  

Dear Article Clubbers,Thank you for the kind birthday wishes last week. It's true that our reading community is 10 years old. And we're just getting started!Just like that, we're in July, which means this week's issue is dedicated to featuring the article of the month and encouraging you to join our discussion.I'm happy to announce that this month, we're going to be diving into “The End of Children,” by Gideon Lewis-Kraus. Published in February in The New Yorker, the article explores the imminent stark drop in population around the world, most notably in South Korea.Don't worry: Even though the declining human fertility rate has become a political topic in the United States, this piece is nuanced and deeply reported. I'm certain you'll appreciate it, even if you end up disagreeing with the writer's stance.Inside today's issue, you'll find:* Melinda and my first impressions of the article (on the podcast)* My blurb about the article* A short bio of the author* A warm invite to join our discussion on July 27If you can't be bothered by all of that, and just want to sign up for the discussion right here and now, by all means, please do!The End of ChildrenGrowing up, I worried about many things. One source of worry was my family's evacuation plan in case of fire; it wasn't robust enough. Another source was the world's exponential population increase, which would inevitably doom us.Turns out, at the time, my concern was not unfounded. In 1968, Paul Ehrlich wrote in The Population Bomb that millions of people would die of starvation unless governments aggressively curtailed the fertility rate. But instead of population rising without bound, the opposite has happened. In 2023, for the first time ever, because on average each woman had fewer than 2.1 children (the “replacement rate”), the world's population shrank. All projections say this trend will continue, until one day, there won't be enough people for us to sustain as a species.In Seoul, where writer Gideon Lewis-Kraus focuses this article, “children are largely phantom presences.” There are more dogs than children. Ask anyone on the street, a Korean demographer said, and they'll know the country's fertility rate. (It is 0.7, the lowest in the world.) Kids bring ick. Many businesses are “no-kids zones.”The United States (fertility rate: 1.6) is headed in a similar direction, Mr. Lewis-Kraus argues. The truth is, for whatever reason (and there are many), younger Americans no longer think having children is an inevitability. As immigration declines, and climate concerns rise, and structural inequities worsen, our country may face the same problem as Korea. And that could lead to catastrophe.Should we care about the declining fertility rate? Or is it just a misogynistic conservative ruse to distract our attention from the deleterious effects of climate change? In my opinion, this is the first article written by a progressive that has looked seriously at the issue and presented it to a mainstream audience.By Gideon Lewis-Kraus • The New Yorker • 42 min • Gift Link➕ Bonus: Here's the article with my handwritten highlights and annotations.About the authorA staff writer at The New Yorker, Mr. Lewis-Kraus grew up in New Jersey and graduated from Stanford. He writes reportage and criticism and is the author of the digressive travel memoir A Sense of Direction as well as the Kindle Single No Exit. Previously, he was a writer-at-large at The New York Times Magazine, a contributing editor at Harper's magazine, and a contributing writer at WIRED magazine. He has lived in San Francisco, Berlin, and Shanghai, and now lives in Brooklyn with his wife and two small children. Mr. Lewis-Kraus generously recorded an interview with Article Club, which will be published in two weeks.About the discussionMy hope is that you'll read “The End of Children” and want to talk about it! (Even though we don't “debate” at Article Club discussions, I predict this topic will lead to a spicier-than-usual conversation.)We'll be meeting up on Zoom on Sunday, July 27, 2:00 - 3:30 pm PT. We'll spend the first few minutes saying hi and doing short introductions. Then after I frame the piece and share our community agreements, we'll break out into small, facilitated discussion groups. The small groups usually include 5-8 people, so there's plenty of time to share your perspectives and listen to others. That's where we'll spend the bulk of our time. Toward the end, we'll return to the full group, sharing our reflections and appreciations of fellow participants.If this sounds interesting to you, sign up by clicking on the button below.If you're unsure, I get it. If you don't know me, it might feel strange to sign up for an online discussion with total strangers. But I am confident that you'll find yourself at home with other kind people who like to read deeply and explore ideas in community. We've done this 58 times, and by now, it's not a surprise that we're able to create an intimate space, almost like we're in the same physical room together.I hope that you read the piece. If it resonates with you, I encourage you to take the plunge and join us on July 27!Thank you for reading and listening to this week's issue. Hope you liked it.

The conversation with Dr. Gale Pooley centers on their groundbreaking book Superabundance, which refutes decades of apocalyptic Malthusian thinking by demonstrating—through hard data—that as population increases, so does abundance. Using the innovative metric of “time prices,” which calculates how much time a person must work to afford basic goods, Dr. Pooley shows that global prosperity has skyrocketed over the past two centuries. This conversation dismantles myths of inevitable resource scarcity by highlighting how human ingenuity, freedom, and market-driven innovation have made the world richer, healthier, and more capable of solving its own problems. We also explore the psychological and cultural roots of anti-human, scarcity-driven ideologies. Figures like Paul Ehrlich and movements such as radical environmentalism promote a view that more people means more problems, but the data reveals the opposite: population growth, when coupled with freedom, is the greatest engine of human progress. The conversation linked the fear of the future to a broader cultural pessimism—fueled by ignorance of history and technophobic fatalism—and calls instead for a renaissance of gratitude and creativity. Far from being a cancer on the Earth, the individual—when free to think, speak, and trade—is a net good. Superabundance Book - https://amzn.to/4nqGQlF Cwic Media Website: http://www.cwicmedia.com

For decades, the great fear was overpopulation. Now it's the opposite. How did this happen — and what's being done about it? (Part one of a three-part series, “Cradle to Grave.”) SOURCES:Matthias Doepke, professor of economics at the London School of Economics.Amy Froide, professor of history at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.Diana Laird, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, San Francisco.Catherine Pakaluk, professor of economics at The Catholic University of America. RESOURCES:"Fertility Rate, Total for the United States," (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2025)."Global fertility in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2021, with forecasts to 2100: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021," (The Lancet, 2024)."Suddenly There Aren't Enough Babies. The Whole World Is Alarmed." by Greg Ip and Janet Adamy (The Wall Street Journal, 2024)."Taxing bachelors and proposing marriage lotteries – how superpowers addressed declining birthrates in the past," by Amy Froide (University of Maryland, 2021)."Is Fertility a Leading Economic Indicator?" by Kasey Buckles, Daniel Hungerman, and Steven Lugauer (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2018).The King's Midwife: A History and Mystery of Madame du Coudray, by Nina Rattner Gelbart (1999).The Population Bomb, by Paul Ehrlich (1970)."An Economic Analysis of Fertility," by Gary Becker (National Bureau of Economic Research, 1960). EXTRAS:"What Will Be the Consequences of the Latest Prenatal-Testing Technologies?" by Freakonomics Radio (2011).

Send us a textCongressman Mike Quigley is in his 9th term representing Chicago's North Side and Lakefront as a Democrat in the House. He made waves last year after the first presidential debate as one of the first elected Democrats to publicly urge President Biden to step aside as the party's nominee. In this conversation, we talk through what led him to speak out, the reaction from the White House and his colleagues, and why he believes it's an important conversation for the party to have now. We also discuss his path in politics as a staffer, as a reformer on the Cook County Board, winning a 20+ candidate '09 special election to replace Rahm Emanuel in the House, favorite moments during his tenure, what he's learned visiting Ukraine, and what Democrats need to do to better connect with voters.IN THIS EPISODEGrowing up in a conservative, blue-collar household in in the Midwest...The teacher who made an impression on his politics and the advice he continues to quote today...Learning both theory at the University of Chicago and practical politics while cutting his teeth in Cook County politics...Why he lost his first race for office and how he turned a loss into a win a few years later...A decade on the Cook County Board as a reformer taking on the Chicago machine...How he won a 20+ person special election in 2009 to replace Rep. Rahm Emanuel in the House...Initial impressions and surprises in his early days in Congress...Two members who served as his mentors...Some of the work he's done in the House he's most proud of...Why Ukraine matters and what he's learned by traveling to the country several times...Why he was one of the first Democratic elected officials to call on President Biden to step aside as the '24 Democratic nominee in the aftermath of the debate...Reactions from colleagues and constituents after going public with his concerns about President Biden...Do Democrats have a larger problem of too many older Democrats refusing to retire and make way for younger leaders?Thoughts on how Democrats can better connect with voters...His favorite Chicago Blackhawks' memory and excitement for the new Chicago Pope...AND John Anzalone, big cats, Rod Blagojevich, burning your mortgage, cannon fodder, Frank Capra, Carol Stream, Forrest Claypool, Walter Cronkite, Paul Ehrlich, Sara Feigenholtz, John Fritchey, William Fulbright, Mary Gatey, Gabby Giffords, Newt Gingrich, Bernie Hansen, Kasie Hunt, Mark Kirk, John Lewis, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Vladimir Putin, Robert Redford, Branch Rickey, FDR, Paul Ryan, Helen Schiller, Glenn Schneider, Michael Sheahan, Adam Smith, spring chickens, John Stroger, Larry Suffredin, Studs Terkel, Harry Truman, The Weiner Circle, Gary Williams, working for the pension...& more!

In every generation, important people predict that the end is near and the apocalypse is coming. In the 1960s, the fear was that population growth would destroy the planet—that fertility would outrun the food supply, and hundreds of millions of people would starve to death. The most famous warning was 'The Population Bomb,' a bestselling book published in 1968 by Stanford ecologist Paul Ehrlich, which claimed "the battle to feed all of humanity is over" and “hundreds of millions of people would starve to death” in the 1970s. But then the 1970s came and went. And global famine deaths didn't rise. They declined by 90 percent. In the 1980s, deaths from world hunger fell again. And again in the 1990s. And again in the 2000s. The apocalypse that everybody said was coming never came. And the reason is, basically, we invented super wheat. In the 1950s and 1960s, a plant pathologist named Norman Borlaug, working in Mexico on fungus-resistant wheat on a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation, managed to create a breed of wheat that was super abundant, efficient, and disease-resistant. His work kickstarted what's known as the Green Revolution, a movement whose discoveries are responsible for keeping roughly half the planet alive. In 2007, when Borlaug was 93, The Wall Street Journal editorialized that he had “arguably saved more lives than anyone in history. Maybe one billion.” Today's guest is Charles C. Mann, a journalist and author. We talk about the long history of the Green Revolution. Who was Norman Borlaug? What did he actually do? How did he do it? What does his accomplishment teach us about science, invention, and progress? We're at a moment today when American science is being cut to the bone while foreign aid is being slashed. I sometimes hear the question: What is foreign aid really worth to us? I think it's important to remember that Norman Borlaug was a foundation-funded scientist who didn't do his most important work in air-conditioned labs at Harvard or Johns Hopkins. His breakthroughs came in lean-to shacks in Mexico, where he worked to improve harvests. Without Borlaug's accomplishments, the world would look very different: Famines might trigger migration that destabilizes countries and transforms global politics. The world we have today, where countries like China and India can easily feed their huge populations, is a gift to global stability, to humanity, to America. It grew from the seed of a foreign agricultural support program. If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at PlainEnglish@Spotify.com. Host: Derek Thompson Guest: Charles C. Mann Producer: Devon Baroldi Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In the 1960s, a deep anxiety set in as one thing became seemingly clear: We were headed toward population catastrophe. Paul Ehrlich's “The Population Bomb” and “The Limits to Growth,” written by the Club of Rome, were just two publications warning of impending starvation due to simply too many humans on the earth.As the population ballooned year by year, it would simply be impossible to feed everyone. Demographers and environmentalists alike held their breath and braced for impact.Except that we didn't starve. On the contrary, we were better fed than ever.In his article in The New Atlantis, Charles C. Mann explains that agricultural innovation — from improved fertilization and irrigation to genetic modification — has brought global hunger to a record low.Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I chat with Mann about the agricultural history they didn't teach you in school.Mann is a science journalist who has worked as a correspondent for The Atlantic, Science, and Wired magazines, and whose work has been featured in many other major publications. He is also the author of 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus and1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created, as well as The Wizard and the Prophet: Two Remarkable Scientists and Their Dueling Visions to Shape Tomorrow's World.In This Episode* Intro to the Agricultural Revolution (2:04)* Water infrastructure (13:11)* Feeding the masses (18:20)* Indigenous America (25:20)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. Intro to the Agricultural Revolution (2:04)I don't think that people realize that the fact that most people on earth, almost the average person on earth, can feed themselves is a novel phenomenon. It's something that basically wasn't true since as far back as we know.Pethokoukis: What got my attention was a couple of pieces that you've worked on for The New Atlantis magazine looking at the issue of how modern Americans take for granted the remarkable systems and infrastructure that provide us comfort, safety, and a sense of luxury that would've been utterly unimaginable even to the wealthiest people of a hundred years ago or 200 years ago.Let me start off by asking you: Does it matter that we do take that for granted and that we also kind of don't understand how our world works?Mann: I would say yes, very much. It matters because these systems undergird the prosperity that we have, the good fortune that we have to be alive now, but they're always one generation away from collapse. If they aren't maintained, upgraded and modernized, they'll fall apart. They just won't stand there. So we have to be aware of this. We have to keep our eye on the ball, otherwise we won't have these things.The second thing is that, if we don't know how our society works, as citizens, we're simply not going to make very good choices about what to do with that society. I feel like both sides in our current political divide are kind of taking their eye off the ball. It's important to have good roads, it's important to have clean water, it's important to have a functioning public health system, it's important to have an agricultural system that works. It doesn't really matter who you are. And if we don't keep these things going, life will be unnecessarily bad for a lot of people, and that's just crazy to do.Is this a more recent phenomenon? If I would've asked people 50 years ago, “Explain to me how our infrastructure functions, how we get water, how we get electricity,” would they have a better idea? Is it just because things are more complicated today that we have no idea how our food gets here or why when we turn the faucet, clean water comes out?The answer is “yes” in a sort of trivial sense, in that many more people were involved in producing food, a much greater percentage of the population was involved in producing food 50 years ago. The same thing was true for the people who were building infrastructure 50 years ago.But I also think it's generally true that people's parents saw the change and knew it. So that is very much the case and, in a sense, I think we're victims of our own success. These kinds of things have brought us so much prosperity that we can afford to do crazy things like become YouTube influencers, or podcasters, or freelance writers. You don't really have any connection with how the society goes because we're sort of surfing on this wave of luxury that our ancestors bequeathed to us.I don't know how much time you spend on social media, Charles — I'm sure I spend too much — but I certainly sense that many people today, younger people especially, don't have a sense of how someone lived 50 years ago, 100 years ago, and there was just a lot more physical suffering. And certainly, if you go back far enough, you could not take for granted that you would have tomatoes in your supermarket year round, that you would have water in the house and that water would be clean. What I found really interesting — you did a piece on food and a piece on water — in the food piece you note that, in the 1980s, that was a real turning point that the average person on earth had enough to eat all the time, and rather than becoming an issue of food production, it became an issue of distribution, of governance. I think most people would be surprised of that statistic even though it's 40 years old.I don't think that people realize that the fact that most people on earth, almost the average person on earth, can feed themselves is a novel phenomenon. It's something that basically wasn't true since as far back as we know. That's this enormous turning point, and there are many of these turning points. Obviously, the introduction of antibiotics for . . . public health, which is another one of these articles they're going to be working on . . .Just about 100 years ago today, when President Coolidge was [president], his son went to play tennis at the White House tennis courts, and because he was lazy, or it was fashionable, or something, he didn't put on socks. He got a blister on his toe, the toe got infected, and he died. 100 years ago, the president of the United States, who presumably had the best healthcare available to anybody in the world, was unable to save his beloved son when the son got a trivial blister that got infected. The change from that to now is mind boggling.You've written about the Agricultural Revolution and why the great fears 40 or 50 years ago of mass starvation didn't happen. I find that an endlessly interesting topic, both for its importance and for the fact it just seems to be so underappreciated to this day, even when it was sort of obvious to people who pay attention that something was happening, it still seemed not to penetrate the public consciousness. I wonder if you could just briefly talk to me about that revolution and how it happened.The question is, how did it go from “The Population Bomb” written in 1968, a huge bestseller, hugely influential, predicting that there is going to be hundreds of millions of people dying of mass starvation, followed by other equally impassioned, equally important warnings. There's one called “Famine, 1975!,” written a few years before, that predicted mass famines in 1975. There's “The Limits to Growth.” I went to college in the '70s and these were books that were on the curriculum, and they were regarded as contemporary classics, and they all proved to be wrong.The reason is that, although they were quite correct about the fact that the human race was reproducing at that time faster than ever before, they didn't realize two things: The first is that as societies get more affluent, and particularly as societies get more affluent and give women more opportunities, birth rates decline. So that this was obviously, if you looked at history, going to be a temporary phenomenon of whatever length it was be, but it was not going to be infinite.The second was there was this enormous effort spurred by this guy named Norman Borlaug, but with tons of other people involved, to take modern science and apply it to agriculture, and that included these sort of three waves of innovation. Now, most innovation is actually just doing older technologies better, which is a huge source of progress, and the first one was irrigation. Irrigation has been around since forever. It's almost always been done badly. It's almost always not been done systematically. People started doing it better. They still have a lot of problems with it, but it's way better, and now 40 percent, roughly, of the crops in the world that are produced are produced by irrigation.The second is the introduction of fertilizer. There's two German scientists, Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch, who essentially developed the ways of taking fertilizer and making lots and lots of it in factories. I could go into more detail if you want, but that's the essential thing. This had never been done before, and suddenly cheap industrial fertilizer became available all over the world, and Vaclav Smil . . . he's sort of an environmental scientist of every sort, in Manitoba has calculated that roughly 40 percent of the people on earth today would not be alive if it wasn't for that.And then the third was the development of much better, much higher-yielding seeds, and that was the part that Norman Borlaug had done. These packaged together of irrigation fertilizer and seeds yielded what's been called the Green Revolution, doubled, tripled, or even quadrupled grain yields across the world, particularly with wheat and rice. The result is the world we live in today. When I was growing up, when you were growing up, your parents may have said to you, as they did me, Oh, eat your vegetables, there are kids that are starving in Asia.” Right? That was what was told and that was the story that was told in books like “The Population Bomb,” and now Asia's our commercial rival. When you go to Bangkok, that was a place that was hungry and now it's gleaming skyscrapers and so forth. It's all based on this fact that people are able to feed themselves through the combination of these three factors,That story, the story of mass-starvation that the Green Revolution irrigation prevented from coming true. I think a surprising number of people still think that story is relevant today, just as some people still think the population will be exploding when it seems clear it probably will not be exploding. It will rise, but then it's going to start coming down at some point this century. I think those messages just don't get through. Just like most people don't know Norm Borlaug, the Haber-Bosch process, which school kids should know. They don't know any of this. . . Borlaug won the Nobel Prize, right?Right. He won the Nobel Peace Prize. I'll tell you a funny story —I think he won it in the same year that “The Population Bomb” came out.It was just a couple years off. But you're right, the central point is right, and the funny thing is . . . I wrote another book a while back that talked about this and about the way environmentalists think about the world, and it's called the “Wizard and the Prophet” and Borlaug was the wizard of it. I thought, when I proposed it, that it would be easy. He was such an important guy, there'd be tons of biographies about him. And to this day, there isn't a real serious scholarly biography of the guy. This is a person who has done arguably more to change human life than any other person in the 20th century, certainly up in the top dozen or so. There's not a single serious biography of him.How can that be?It's because we're tremendously disconnected. It's a symptom of what I'm talking about. We're tremendously disconnected from these systems, and it's too bad because they're interesting! They're actually quite interesting to figure out: How do you get water to eight billion people? How do you get . . . It is a huge challenge, and some of the smartest people you've ever met are working on it every day, but they're working on it over here, and the public attention is over here.Water infrastructure (13:11). . . the lack of decent, clean, fresh water is the world's worst immediate environmental problem. I think people probably have some vague idea about agriculture, the Agricultural Revolution, how farming has changed, but I think, as you just referred to, the second half, water — utter mystery to people. Comes out of a pipe. The challenges of doing that in a rich country are hard. The challenges doing a country not so rich, also hard. Tell me what you find interesting about that topic.Well, whereas the story about agriculture is basically a good story: We've gotten better at it. We have a whole bunch of technical innovations that came in the 20th century and humankind is better off than ever before. With water, too, we are better off than ever before, but the maddening thing is we could be really well off because the technology is basically extremely old.There's a city, a very ancient city called Mohenjo-daro that I write about a bit in this article that was in essentially on the Pakistan-India border, 2600 BC. And they had a fully functioning water system that, in its basics, was no different than the water system that we have, or that London has, or that Paris has. So this is an ancient, ancient technology, yet we still have two billion people on the planet that don't have access to adequate water. In fact, even though we know how to do it, the lack of decent, clean, fresh water is the world's worst immediate environmental problem. And a small thing that makes me nuts is that climate change — which is real and important — gets a lot of attention, but there are people dying of not getting good water now.On top of it, even in rich countries like us, our water system is antiquated. The great bulk of it was built in the '40s, '50s, and '60s, and, like any kind of physical system, it ages, and every couple years, various engineering bodies, water bodies, the EPA, and so forth puts out a report saying, “Hey, we really have to fix the US water system and the numbers keep mounting up.” And Democrats, Republicans, they all ignore this.Who is working on the water issue in poorer countries?There you have a very ad hoc group of people. The answer is part of it's the Food and Agricultural Organization because most water in most countries is used for irrigation to grow food. You also have the World Health Organization, these kinds of bodies. You have NGOs working on it. What you don't have in those countries like our country is the government taking responsibility for coordinating something that's obviously in the national interest.So you have these things where, very periodically — a government like China has done this, Jordan has done this, Bolivia has done this, countries all over the world have done this — and they say, “Okay, we haven't been able to provide freshwater. Let's bring in a private company.” And the private company then invests all this money in infrastructure, which is expensive. Then, because it's a private company, it has to make that money back, and so it charges people for a lot of money for this, and the people are very unhappy because suddenly they're paying a quarter of their income for water, which is what I saw in Southwest China: water riots because people are paying so much for water.In other words, one of the things that government can do is sort of spread these costs over everybody, but instead they concentrate it on the users, Almost universally, these privatization efforts have led to tremendous political unhappiness because the government has essentially shifted responsibility for coordinating and doing these things and imposed a cost on a narrow minority of the users.Are we finally getting on top of the old water infrastructure in this country? It seems like during the Biden administration they had a big infrastructure bill. Do you happen to know if we are finally getting that system upgraded?Listen, I will be the only person who probably ever interviews you who's actually had to fix a water main as a summer job. I spent [it at] my local Public Works Department where we'd have to fix water mains, and this was a number of years ago, and even a number of years ago, those pipes were really, really old. It didn't take much for them to get a main break.I'm one of those weird people who is bothered by this. All I can tell you is we have a lot of aging infrastructure. The last estimate that I've seen came before this sort of sudden jerky rise of construction costs, which, if you're at all involved in building, is basically all the people in the construction industry talk about. At that point, the estimate was that it was $1.2 trillion to fix the infrastructure that we have in the United States. I am sure it is higher now. I am delighted that the Biden people passed this infrastructure — would've been great if they passed permitting reform and a couple of other things to make it easier to spend the money, but okay. I would like to believe that the Trump people would take up the baton and go on this.Feeding the masses (18:20)I do worry that the kind of regulations, and rules, and ideas that we put into place to try and make agriculture more like this picture that we have in our head will end up inadvertently causing suffering for the people who are struggling.We're still going to have another two billion people, maybe, on this earth. Are we going to be able to feed them all?Yeah, I think that there's no question. The question is what we're going to be able to feed them? Are we going to be able to feed them all, filet mignon and truffled . . . whatever they put truffle oil on, and all that? Not so sure about that.All organic vegetables.At the moment, that seems really implausible, and there's a sort of fundamental argument going on here. There's a lot of people, again, both right and left, who are sort of freaked out by the scale that modern agriculture operates on. You fly over the middle-west and you see all those circles of center-pivot irrigation, they plowed under, in the beginning of the 20th century, 100 million acres of prairie to produce all that. And it's done with enormous amounts of capital, and it was done also partly by moving people out so that you could have this enormous stuff. The result is it creates a system that . . . doesn't match many people's vision of the friendly family farmer that they grew up with. It's a giant industrial process and people are freaked out by the scale. They don't trust these entities, the Cargills and the ADMs, and all these huge companies that they see as not having their interests at heart.It's very understandable. I live in a small town, we have a farm down there, and Jeremy runs it, and I'm very happy to see Jeremy. There's no Jeremy at Archer Daniels Midland. So the result is that there's a big revulsion against that, and people want to downsize the scale, and they point to very real environmental problems that big agriculture has, and they say that that is reason for this. The great problem is that in every single study that I am aware of, the sort of small, local farms don't produce as much food per acre or per hectare as the big, soulless industrial processes. So if you're concerned about feeding everybody, that's something you have to really weigh in your head, or heavy in your heart.That sort of notion of what a farm should look like and what good food is, that kind of almost romantic notion really, to me, plays into the sort of anti-growth or the degrowth people who seemed to be saying that farms could only be this one thing — probably they don't even remember those farms anymore — that I saw in a storybook. It's like a family farm, everything's grown local, not a very industrial process, but you're talking about a very different world. Maybe that's a world they want, but I don't know if that's a world you want if you're a poor person in this world.No, and like I said, I love going to the small farm next to us and talking to Jeremy and he says, “Oh look, we've just got these tomatoes,” it's great, but I have to pay for that privilege. And it is a privilege because Jeremy is barely making it and charging twice as much as the supermarket. There's no economies of scale for him. He still has to buy all the equipment, but he's putting it over 20 acres instead of 2000 acres. In addition, it's because it's this hyper-diverse farm — which is wonderful; they get to see the strawberries, and the tomatoes, and all the different things — it means he has to hire much more labor than it would be if he was just specializing in one thing. So his costs are inevitably much, much higher, and, therefore, I have to pay a lot more to keep him going. That's fine for me; I'm a middle-class person, I like food, this can be my hobby going there.I'd hate to have somebody tell me it's bad, but it's not a system that is geared for people who are struggling. There are just a ton of people all over the world who are struggling. They're better off than they were 100 years ago, but they're still struggling. I do worry that the kind of regulations, and rules, and ideas that we put into place to try and make agriculture more like this picture that we have in our head will end up inadvertently causing suffering for the people who are struggling.To make sure everybody can get fed in the future, do we need a lot more innovation?Innovation is always good. I would say that we do, and the kinds of innovation we need are not often what people imagine. For example, it's pretty clear that parts of the world are getting drier, and therefore irrigation is getting more difficult. The American Southwest is a primary candidate, and you go to the Safford Valley, which I did a few years ago — the Safford Valley is in southeast Arizona and it's hotter than hell there. I went there and it's 106 degrees and there's water from the Colorado River, 800 miles away, being channeled there, and they're growing Pima cotton. Pima cotton is this very good fine cotton that they use to make fancy clothes, and it's a great cash crop for farmers, but growing it involves channeling water from the Colorado 800 miles, and then they grow it by what's called flood irrigation, which is where you just fill the field with an inch of water. I was there actually to see an archeologist who's a water engineer, and I said to him, “Gee, it's hot! How much that water is evaporated?” And he said, “Oh, all of it.”So we need to think about that kind of thing if the Colorado is going to run out of water, which it is now. There's ways you can do it, you can possibly genetically modify cotton to use less water. You could drip irrigation, which is a much more efficient form of irrigation, it's readily available, but it's expensive. So you could try to help farmers do that. I think if you cut the soft costs, which is called the regulatory costs of farming, you might be able to pay for it in that way. That would be one type of innovation. Another type of thing you could do is to do a different kind of farming which is called civil pastoral systems, where you grow tree crops and then you grow cattle underneath, and that uses dramatically less water. It's being done in Sonora, just across the border and the tree crops — trees are basically wild. People don't breed them because it takes so long, but we now have the tools to breed them, and so you could make highly productive trees with cattle underneath and have a system that produces a lot of calories or a lot of good stuff. That's all the different kinds of innovation that we could do. Just some of the different kinds of innovation we could do and all would help.Indigenous America (25:20)Part of the reason I wrote these things is that I realized it's really interesting and I didn't learn anything about it in school.Great articles in The New Atlantis, big fan of “Wizard and the Prophet,” but I'm going to take one minute and ask you about your great books talking about the story of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. If I just want to travel in the United States and I'm interested in finding out more about Native Americans in the United States, where would you tell me to go?One of my favorite places just it's so amazing, is Chaco Canyon, and that's in the Four Corners area — that whole Four Corners area is quite incredible — and Chaco Canyon is a sign that native people could build amazing stuff, and native people could be crazy, in my opinion. It's in the middle of nowhere, it has no water, and for reasons that are probably spiritual and religious, they built an enormous number of essentially castles in this canyon, and they're incredible.The biggest one, Pueblo Bonito as it's called now, it's like 800 rooms. They're just enormous. And you can go there, and you can see these places, and you can just walk around, and it is incredible. You drive up a little bit to Mesa Verde and there's hundreds of these incredible cliff dwellings. What seems to have happened — I'm going to put this really informally and kind of jokingly to you, not the way that an archeologist would talk about it or I would write about it, but what looks like it happened is that the Chaco Canyon is this big canyon, and on the good side that gets the southern exposure is all these big houses. And then the minions and the hoi polloi lived on the other side, and it looks like, around 800, 900, they just got really tired of serving the kings and they had something like a democratic revolution, and they just left, most of them, and founded the Pueblos, which is these intensely democratic self-governing bodies that are kind of like what Thomas Jefferson thought the United States should be.Then it's like all the doctors, and the lawyers, and the MBAs, and the rich guys went up to Mesa Verde and they started off their own little kingdoms and they all fought with each other. So you have these crazy cliff dwellings where it's impossible to get in and there's hundreds of people living in these niches in these cliffs, and then that blew up too. So you could see history, democracy, and really great architecture all in one place.If someone asked me for my advice about changing the curriculum in school, one, people would leave school knowing who the heroes of progress and heroes of the Agricultural Revolution were. And I think they'd also know a lot more about pre-Columbian history of the Americas. I think they should know about it but I also think it's just super interesting, though of course you've brought it to life in a beautiful way.Thank you very much, and I couldn't agree with you more. Part of the reason I wrote these things is that I realized it's really interesting and I didn't learn anything about it in school.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were PromisedFaster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

2:30 Green Scam Implodes: Climate Startups Swap CO2 Lies for Fighter Jets and Depopulation Bombs      Climate startups once preaching “save the planet” are now churning out jet fighters and AI war machines—guzzling fossil fuels and spewing bombs like there's no tomorrow! Forget CO2—these green grifters never cared about the Earth; it's always been a depopulation cash grab, from Paul Ehrlich's “population bomb” to vaccine plagues.     Meanwhile, an AI study (led by Grok 3!) and a maverick scientist shred the UN's climate hoax, proving solar cycles—not your carbon footprint—rule the planet.     Oh, and global headcounts? Off by billions, says a dam-busting study! Trump's coal comeback might just torch this scam—but is it too late to stop the elitist kill-machine 33:00 Tesla Tanks, China Soars, and Your Wallet Bleeds in a Trade War Fiasco     Trump's latest tariff tirade is a high-octane disaster! With a dictator's pen stroke, he's slapped a 25% tax on autos, jacking up the average car price by a staggering $12,000 overnight—straight out of your pocket! Tesla's sales in Europe have crashed while China's BYD rockets      Are tariffs meant to help domestic manufacturers? Stocks for GM and Ford are tanking as trade war retaliation looms. 48:27 EU Prepares for War: Panic, Propaganda, and the REAL Scandal No One Talks About      The EU is ramping up for war, advising citizens to stockpile a mere 72 hours of supplies while downplaying the true dangers looming.     Forget the media frenzy about “Signal”, the real scandal is the violation of the Constitution, not the violation of “national security”.  And what about the morality of the unleashing of death on the other side of the world as they wine and dine at a MILLION DOLLAR A PLATE Mar-a-Lago fundraiser?     From the secretive military operations in Diego Garcia to bombings in Yemen, the world is heading toward chaos—and it's not just about national security, it's about a global power reset. Get the truth behind the headlines before it's too late. 1:09:11 Iranian Christians Deported: Real Refugees Thrown to Wolves     A group of Iranian Christians, facing execution for their faith, begged for U.S. asylum—only to be betrayed by the Trump administration and dumped in Panama with a 30-day return nearly up.     A gripping tale of underground churches and deadly persecution, and American indifference 1:17:42 Abortion's Marxist Roots in Today's Woke War on FamilyWe can see the fruit of the Soviet Union's 1920 abortion legalization and Trotsky's view of replacing the family with government in today's secularist society shoving Christians out of the public square.  The remedy was explained 150 years ago by a politician who nearly became President but became a pastor instead when he lost by 1 vote 1:35:22 Gold's Meteoric Rise, the Dollar's Demise, and Trump's Tariff Chaos Spark a Global Financial ResetGold has surged past $3,000 an ounce and held on or increased admit the chaos. Tony Arterburn joins David Knight as central banks are hoarding gold like it's the last lifeboat on a sinking ship. Is this the orchestrated collapse of the dollar paving the way for a dazzling new financial world order? Visit DavidKnight.Gold for stability and privacy that's priceless 2:19:58 Thank you to CashApp donors 2:21:20 Measles Death? Parents of Child Reveal She Died of Malpractice     A 6-year-old girl's death, hyped as a measles tragedy, was actually a chilling case of medical malpractice Meanwhile, vaccine rates drop as trust in “public health” tyrants crumbles so Daily Mail screams the "world's most infectious disease” comes to DC— not bureaucrats but measles?      And Washington Post goes on the attack when their beloved vax is to be investigated.  What's the truth about mercury?  Is there a connection between vaccines and MS? 2:47:06 Vaccines: The Parasite Pipeline to MS?As research reveals a massive increase in MS after vaccination, a doctor says 100% of MS autopsies had parasites.  Is there a connection? If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHTFor 10% off supplements and books, go to RNCstore.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

2:30 Green Scam Implodes: Climate Startups Swap CO2 Lies for Fighter Jets and Depopulation Bombs      Climate startups once preaching “save the planet” are now churning out jet fighters and AI war machines—guzzling fossil fuels and spewing bombs like there's no tomorrow! Forget CO2—these green grifters never cared about the Earth; it's always been a depopulation cash grab, from Paul Ehrlich's “population bomb” to vaccine plagues.     Meanwhile, an AI study (led by Grok 3!) and a maverick scientist shred the UN's climate hoax, proving solar cycles—not your carbon footprint—rule the planet.     Oh, and global headcounts? Off by billions, says a dam-busting study! Trump's coal comeback might just torch this scam—but is it too late to stop the elitist kill-machine 33:00 Tesla Tanks, China Soars, and Your Wallet Bleeds in a Trade War Fiasco     Trump's latest tariff tirade is a high-octane disaster! With a dictator's pen stroke, he's slapped a 25% tax on autos, jacking up the average car price by a staggering $12,000 overnight—straight out of your pocket! Tesla's sales in Europe have crashed while China's BYD rockets      Are tariffs meant to help domestic manufacturers? Stocks for GM and Ford are tanking as trade war retaliation looms. 48:27 EU Prepares for War: Panic, Propaganda, and the REAL Scandal No One Talks About      The EU is ramping up for war, advising citizens to stockpile a mere 72 hours of supplies while downplaying the true dangers looming.     Forget the media frenzy about “Signal”, the real scandal is the violation of the Constitution, not the violation of “national security”.  And what about the morality of the unleashing of death on the other side of the world as they wine and dine at a MILLION DOLLAR A PLATE Mar-a-Lago fundraiser?     From the secretive military operations in Diego Garcia to bombings in Yemen, the world is heading toward chaos—and it's not just about national security, it's about a global power reset. Get the truth behind the headlines before it's too late. 1:09:11 Iranian Christians Deported: Real Refugees Thrown to Wolves     A group of Iranian Christians, facing execution for their faith, begged for U.S. asylum—only to be betrayed by the Trump administration and dumped in Panama with a 30-day return nearly up.     A gripping tale of underground churches and deadly persecution, and American indifference 1:17:42 Abortion's Marxist Roots in Today's Woke War on FamilyWe can see the fruit of the Soviet Union's 1920 abortion legalization and Trotsky's view of replacing the family with government in today's secularist society shoving Christians out of the public square.  The remedy was explained 150 years ago by a politician who nearly became President but became a pastor instead when he lost by 1 vote 1:35:22 Gold's Meteoric Rise, the Dollar's Demise, and Trump's Tariff Chaos Spark a Global Financial ResetGold has surged past $3,000 an ounce and held on or increased admit the chaos. Tony Arterburn joins David Knight as central banks are hoarding gold like it's the last lifeboat on a sinking ship. Is this the orchestrated collapse of the dollar paving the way for a dazzling new financial world order? Visit DavidKnight.Gold for stability and privacy that's priceless 2:19:58 Thank you to CashApp donors 2:21:20 Measles Death? Parents of Child Reveal She Died of Malpractice     A 6-year-old girl's death, hyped as a measles tragedy, was actually a chilling case of medical malpractice Meanwhile, vaccine rates drop as trust in “public health” tyrants crumbles so Daily Mail screams the "world's most infectious disease” comes to DC— not bureaucrats but measles?      And Washington Post goes on the attack when their beloved vax is to be investigated.  What's the truth about mercury?  Is there a connection between vaccines and MS? 2:47:06 Vaccines: The Parasite Pipeline to MS?As research reveals a massive increase in MS after vaccination, a doctor says 100% of MS autopsies had parasites.  Is there a connection?If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHTFor 10% off supplements and books, go to RNCstore.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.

In this episode of Ideas Have Consequences, Larry Alex Taunton takes you behind the scenes of the World Economic Forum (WEF) to uncover its history, agenda, and global influence. Discover the key ideas and books that shaped the WEF's policies, including The Population Bomb, Limits to Growth, and The First Global Revolution. Learn how figures like Klaus Schwab, Paul Ehrlich, and Henry Kissinger influenced the Forum's controversial stances on population control, global governance, and elitism. Follow me everywhere: https://linktr.ee/larrytaunton  ✉️ Get all the content I can't share publicly directly in your inbox… https://join.larrytaunton.com/  Sign up for the Posse here: Join the Posse on Tribes https://www.growtribes.com/larry/subs...

In this episode of A Climate Change, host Matt Matern talks with Paul Ehrlich, renowned author of The Population Bomb and Professor Emeritus at Stanford. We discuss the global impact of overpopulation, food security challenges, and systemic change's critical role in combating climate disruption. Paul emphasizes the need for sustainable practices, women's rights, and ethical responses to climate-driven migration, urging listeners to take action for a more sustainable future. If you want to help us reach our goal of planting 30k trees AND get a free tree planted in your name, visit www.aclimatechange.com/trees to learn how.

About Paul Ehrlich Paul Ehrlich is the Bing Professor of Population Studies, Emeritus, and founder of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford. He has carried out field, laboratory, and theoretical research on the dynamics and genetics of insect populations, the evolutionary interactions of plants and herbivores, the behavioral ecology of birds and reef fishes, […] Read full article: Episode 137: Paul Ehrlich On Saving Nature's Populations and Ourselves

In dieser Folge erzählt Andrea Sawatzki die – im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes – bunte Lebensgeschichte von Paul Ehrlich.

Paul Ehrlich reflects on his extensive career, including what he got wrong in The Population Bomb, the challenges of population growth, and the critical issue of biodiversity loss. He also discusses the importance of education and wealth in promoting environmental stewardship, the role of nuclear power, and the ethical dilemmas of cloning extinct species. Paul Ehrlich is Professor Emeritus of Population Studies in the Department of Biology and the president of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University. He is the author of The Population Bomb. His new book is Before They Vanish: Saving Nature's Populations—and Ourselves.

Marian Tupy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, discusses his book "Super Abundance" with Gene Tunny. Tupy argues that resources are becoming more abundant relative to global population, a concept he calls "super abundance." He explains that human ingenuity has led to cheaper commodities over time. Tupy refutes Malthusian predictions of resource scarcity, citing examples like the Haber-Bosch process for synthetic fertilizer. He also addresses environmental concerns, emphasizing that economic growth and technological advancements can mitigate issues like ocean and air pollution and resource depletion.If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for Gene, please email him at contact@economicsexplored.com  or send a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored. About this episode's guest: Marian Tupy, Cato InstituteMarian L. Tupy is the founder and editor of Human​Progress​.org, and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute's Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.He is the co-author of the Simon Abundance Index, Superabundance: The Story of Population Growth, Innovation, and Human Flourishing on an Infinitely Bountiful Planet (2022) and Ten Global Trends Every Smart Person Should Know: And Many Others You Will Find Interesting (2020).His articles have been published in the Financial Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, Newsweek, the U.K. Spectator, Foreign Policy, and various other outlets both in the United States and overseas. He has appeared on BBC, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business, and other channels.Tupy received his BA in international relations and classics from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, and his PhD in international relations from the University of St. Andrews in the United Kingdom.Source: https://www.cato.org/people/marian-l-tupyTimestamps for EP258Introduction and Overview of the Podcast (0:00)Explaining the Concept of Super Abundance (2:30)Methodology and Stylized Facts (6:48)Julian Simon and the Bet with Paul Ehrlich (9:46)Future Prospects and Human Ingenuity (12:45)Environmental Concerns and Degrowth (22:59)Population Growth and Resource Use (33:11)Final Thoughts and Future Prospects (34:08)TakeawaysTupy argues that human ingenuity continuously expands the resource base, making resources more abundant even as populations grow.The concept of "time prices" shows that resources are becoming cheaper relative to wages, supporting the thesis of super abundance.The famous Simon-Ehrlich bet demonstrates that commodities became cheaper over time, disproving doomsday predictions about resource depletion.Technological advancements, such as desalination and agricultural productivity, are key to sustaining resource abundance.Economic prosperity and technological innovation are essential for environmental protection.Links relevant to the conversationMarian's book Superabundance:https://www.amazon.com.au/Superabundance-Population-Growth-Innovation-Flourishing/dp/1952223393Simon–Ehrlich wager Wikipedia entry:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wagerRegarding the question, “Is it true that the majority of plastic in the oceans comes from Asia and Africa?” see:https://www.perplexity.ai/search/is-it-true-that-the-majority-o-3aYOSMTyT6m9CcULDm7IugLumo Coffee promotion10% of Lumo Coffee's Seriously Healthy Organic Coffee.Website: https://www.lumocoffee.com/10EXPLOREDPromo code: 10EXPLORED 

Send me a text!Introduced by German chemist Heinrich Caro as a textile dye in the 19th century, methylene blue soon attracted the interests of notable scientists like Robert Koch and Paul Ehrlich. Recognizing its unique antimicrobial properties, they helped transition it from textile labs to medical clinics. By the early 20th century, methylene blue had gained recognition as an innovative malaria treatment, a role it continues to have today. Methylene blue may also offer a wide range of other significant health benefits, beyond fighting infections. By acting as an “electron donor”, methylene blue supercharges your mitochondria, or the powerhouses of your cells. Join me as I sit down with Dr. Scott Sherr, MD, and explore how this incredible compound is currently being used to treat chronic illness, boost cognitive functioning, improve energy, reduce inflammation, and even offer anti-aging benefits.Suggested Resources:Dr. Scott Sherr | InstagramTroscriptionsThe Potentials of Methylene Blue as an Anti-Aging DrugMethylene Blue–Mediated Antimicrobial ​Photodynamic Therapy Against InfectionFrom Mitochondrial Function to Neuroprotection-an Emerging Role for Methylene BlueThis episode is proudly sponsored by Qualia Life. As you approach 30, there's a subtle form of aging that starts before you even notice it, and you should know about it BEFORE it picks up momentum: senescent cell accumulation. These cells start accumulating in us over time, draining our energy and accelerating aging, contributing to typical aging symptoms like reduced energy, slower recovery, and joint discomfort. Qualia Senolytic combines 9 vegan, plant-derived compounds to help your body naturally eliminate senescent cells, that help us age better at the cellular level so we can feel YEARS younger!Get support for slaying YOUR zombie cells now with Qualia Senolytic at qualialife.com/wellnstrong and code WELLNSTRONG for 15% off.Qualia Senolytic combines 9 vegan, plant-derived compounds to help your body naturally eliminate zombie (or senescent) cells, that help us age better at the cellular level so we can feel YEARS younger! Use the code WELLNSTRONG for 15% off!Join the WellnStrong mailing list for exclusive content here!Want more of The How To Be WellnStrong Podcast? Subscribe to the YouTube channel. Follow Jacqueline: Instagram Pinterest TikTok Youtube To access notes from the show & full transcripts, head over to WellnStrong's Podcast Page

In 1968, a book called The Population Bomb written by entomologist Paul Ehrlich helped spark panic in the west that the global population was reaching a breaking point, saying too many human beings would soon cause widespread famine and social chaos. This view that a growing human population is an existential threat to humanity remains widespread to this day. For example, University of Chicago political philosopher Martha Nussbaum recently stated that given the world's current population, “no one should be having any children.” Contemporary empirical evidence, however, points in exactly the opposite direction. Deaths are already outpacing births in many regions of the world, resulting in precipitous declines in national populations. Is this good news for humanity? Are public policies aimed at population control justified? Is there such a thing as an ideal population size? Should anyone care about whether others choose to have children or not? A listener asks whether we should continue going to confession if we keep committing the same sin over and over again. 00:00 | Intro 01:49 | Seminarians kick off school year 03:00 | Assessing population decreases across the globe 05:36 | Increased attitudes against having children 08:24 | Unpacking “culture of death,” ego-drama, and theo-drama 11:33 | Childbearing as a societal good 12:35 | Population capping through public policy 14:07 | Human population and the environment 17:03 | Utilitarianism as a faulty moral theory for addressing population concerns 18:51 | Foregoing childbirth to spare potential children pain 21:20 | Foregoing childbirth to favor economic security 22:33 | Foregoing childbirth for lack of desire 24:55 | Old age without children 28:00 | The centrality of fruitfulness 29:14 | Pope St. Paul VI's prophetic ban on artificial contraception 30:57 | How does the Church look forward? 34:05 | Listener question: Does repeating sins disqualify me from Confession? 36:35 | Join the Word on Fire Institute   Links: Data for “Population Bomb”: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/book-incited-worldwide-fear-overpopulation-180967499/ Article on Martha Nussbaum: https://www.opindia.com/2024/05/india-has-too-many-people-they-dont-have-enough-to-eat-philosopher-martha-nussbaum-makes-drastic-claims-population-reduction/ Quote citation: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/apr/16/bill-maher-inflames-abortion-debate-by-saying-its-/ Abortion statistic: https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwk8e1BhALEiwAc8MHiKjFruJDz0AbdPoR1ttiQT2qJc_uCiFWCE6o9rhvoaxgKyuODBPTlhoC1WAQAvD_BwE Pew Research citation: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/07/25/the-experiences-of-u-s-adults-who-dont-have-children/ Word on Fire Institute: https://institute.wordonfire.org/ NOTE: Do you like this podcast? Become a Word on Fire IGNITE member! Word on Fire is a non-profit ministry that depends on the support of our listeners . . . like you! So become a part of this mission and join IGNITE today to become a Word on Fire insider and receive some special donor gifts for your generosity.  

Catherine Pakaluk is an Associate Professor of Social Research and Economic Thought at the Bush School of Business at the Catholic University of America. Catherine is also the author of a new book titled, *Hannah's Children: The Women Quietly Defying the Birth Dearth,* and she joins David on Macro Musings to talk about it. Catherine and David also specifically discuss the facts of demographic decline, the women who are pushing back against this trend, its broader implications for the economy and society, and more.   Transcript for this week's episode.   Catherine's Twitter: @CRPakaluk Catherine's website Catherine's CUA profile   David Beckworth's Twitter: @DavidBeckworth Follow us on Twitter: @Macro_Musings   Check out our new AI chatbot: the Macro Musebot! Join the new Macro Musings Discord server!   Join the Macro Musings mailing list! Check out our Macro Musings merch!   Related Links:   *Hannah's Children: The Women Quietly Defying the Birth Dearth* by Catherine Pakaluk   *Why Americans Aren't Having Babies* by Rachel Wolfe   *No One Left: Why the World Needs More Children* by Paul Morland   *Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage* by Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas   Timestamps:   (00:00:00) – Intro   (00:03:16) – *Hannah's Children: The Women Quietly Defying the Birth Dearth*   (00:08:30) – The Facts of Demographic Decline   (00:12:48) – The Implications of Demographic Decline   (00:20:28) – Breaking Down the “Chain of Infinity”   (00:23:15) – The Forces Driving Demographic Decline   (00:32:18) – The Influence and Impact of Paul Ehrlich   (00:38:16) – The Motivation and Background for *Hannah's Children*   (00:43:29) – Why Are Women Having Larger Families?   (00:52:18) – Exploring Pronatal Policy Recommendations   (00:57:03) – Outro

Why should I have to change my lifestyle when there's all those poor people over there we can blame?!?BONUS EPISODES available on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/deniersplaybook) SOCIALS & MORE (https://linktr.ee/deniersplaybook) CREDITS Created by: Rollie Williams, Nicole Conlan & Ben BoultHosts: Rollie Williams & Nicole ConlanExecutive producer: Ben Boult Post-production: Jubilaria Media Researchers: Carly Rizzuto, Canute Haroldson & James CrugnaleArt: Jordan Doll Music: Tony Domenick Special thanks: The Civil Liberties Defense Center, Jan Breitling, Robert Fletcher SOURCESTucker: The world we live in cannot last. (2022, January 5). Fox News.U.S. Population Growth Rate 1950-2024. (2024). Macrotrends.Fox News. (2018, December 6). Tucker on mass migration's effect on our environment. YouTube.Fox News. (2017, July 7). Progressive: Limit immigration for the environments sake. YouTube.Utopian Dreams. (2017, March 27). Sir David Attenborough on Overpopulation. YouTube.Climate One. (2017). Jane Goodall Discusses Over Population. YouTube.The Borgen Project. (2010, August 2). Bill Gates on Overpopulation and Global Poverty. YouTube.Balan, M. (2016, October 24). NBC's Guthrie, Tom Hanks Hype Overpopulation: “The Math Does Add Up.” MrcTV; Media Research Center.Malthus, T. R. (1798). An Essay on the Principle of Population. In Internet Archive. J. Johnson London.The 1801 Census. (n.d.). 1911census.org.uk.Poor Law reform. (2024). UK Parliament.Ko, L. (2016, January 29). Unwanted Sterilization and Eugenics Programs in the United States. Independent Lens; PBS.Bold, M. G. (2015, March 5). Op-Ed: It's time for California to compensate its forced-sterilization victims. Los Angeles Times.Fletcher, R., Breitling, J., & Puleo, V. (2014). Barbarian hordes: the overpopulation scapegoat in international development discourse. Third World Quarterly, 35(7), 1195–1215. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2014.926110Lyndon Johnson's State of the Union Address, 1967. (n.d.). Ballotpedia.Timms, A. (2020, May 18). Making Life Cheap: Making Life Cheap Population control, herd immunity, and other anti-humanist fables. The New Republic.National Security Study Memorandum NSSM 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (THE KISSINGER REPORT). (1974). USAID.USAID Policy Paper: Population Assistance. (1982). USAID.Doshi, V. (2016, October 26). Will the closure of India's sterilisation camps end botched operations? The Guardian.Kovarik, J. (2018, October 8). Why Don't We Talk About Peru's Forced Sterilizations? The New Republic.ISSUE BRIEF: USAID'S PARTNERSHIP WITH PERU ADVANCES FAMILY PLANNING. (2016). USAID.Ehrlich, P. R. (1968). The Population Bomb. Ballantine Books.Paul Ehrlich, famed ecologist, answers questions. (2004, August 10). Grist.If Books Could Kill. (2022, December 15). The Population Bomb. Podbay.Union of Concerned Scientists. (1992, July 16). 1992 World Scientists' Warning to Humanity. Union of Concerned Scientists.Haberman, C. (2015, May 31). The Unrealized Horrors of Population Explosion. The New York Times.United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2022). World Population Prospects 2022: Summary of Results. United Nations.Oxfam. (2024, July 2). What is famine, and how can we stop it? Oxfam America.Is There a Global Food Shortage? What's Causing Hunger, Famine and Rising Food Costs Around the World. (2023, November 16). World Food Program USA.Pengra, B. (2012). One Planet, How Many People? A Review of Earth's Carrying Capacity. In UNEP Global Environmental Alert Service (GEAS). UNEP.CONFRONTING CARBON INEQUALITY: Putting climate justice at the heart of the COVID-19 recovery. (2020). In OXFAM Media Briefing. OXFAM.United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2021). Global Population Growth and Sustainable Development. United Nations.Eyrich, T. (2018, November 14). Climate change is worsening, but population control isn't the answer. UC Riverside News.Disclaimer: Some media clips have been edited for length and clarity.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Other Side of the Story with Tom Harris and Todd Royal – Nuclear power – just the name itself conjures up fears from worry-wart end-of-the-world doomsters. American biologist Paul Ehrlich even said, “Giving society cheap, abundant energy at this point would be the moral equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun. With cheap, abundant energy, the attempt clearly would be made to...

Arsenic compounds have been known since ancient times, with the word "arsenic" originating from the Greek word arsenikon, meaning "yellow orpiment". The element itself was possibly first observed in the 13th century by Albertus Magnus, who noted a metal-like substance when heating the mineral arsenicum. In the 17th-19th centuries, arsenic was frequently used for murder due to the lack of specific symptoms and the difficulty in detecting it. It became known as the "poison of kings" and the "king of poisons". Arsenic was also used in the Victorian era by women to improve their complexion, leading to accidental poisonings. Arsenic compounds began to be used in agriculture as insecticides, herbicides and wood preservatives in the late 19th century. In 1900, Paul Ehrlich developed the first effective arsenic-based drug, Salvarsan, to treat syphilis. Arsenic was also used as a war gas called Lewisite during WWII, leading to the development of the antidote British Anti-Lewisite (BAL). Today, arsenic is still used in some pesticides and wood preservatives, but its use has declined due to toxicity concerns. The element itself is produced by heating arsenopyrite ore in the absence of air. While arsenic has a long history of use, its toxicity has also made it notorious as a deadly poison throughout the centuries. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/juliusmanuel/message

On this episode, Nate is joined by ER doctor, nuclear power advocate, and podcast host Chris Keefer for a broad ranging conversation including the basics of nuclear energy, how he engages with opposing opinions, and hypotheticals for a future medical system. Coming from a broad background, Chris understands what it means to have a human to human conversation and put together the pieces of our systemic puzzle in a clear and compelling way. What role could nuclear play for our future energy needs - and how are different countries making use of it today? How can we prioritize the health and safety of people under energetic and resource constraints? Most of all, how do we listen to others that we don't agree with - regardless of the issue - to foster the diverse perspectives necessary to navigate the coming challenges of the human predicament?  About Chris Keefer: Chris Keefer MD, CCFP-EM is a Staff Emergency Physician at St Joseph's Health Centre and a Lecturer for the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the University of Toronto. He is also an avid advocate for expanding nuclear power as the President of Canadians for Nuclear Energy and Director of Doctors for Nuclear Energy. Additionally, he is the host of the Decouple Podcast exploring the most pressing questions in energy, climate, environment, politics, and philosophy. PDF Transcript Show Notes  00:00 - Chris Keefer works + info, Decouple Podcast, Canadians for Nuclear Energy 04:45 - Egalitarian hunter gatherer society, infant mortality 05:12 - Bow drill fire 07:10 - Yukon 07:30 - Humans and livestock outweigh wild mammals 50:1, not in the Yukon 08:10 - Dr. Paul Farmer 08:45 - Most humans use to work in agriculture, ~15% now involved in healthcare 10:56 - Ontario nuclear power, one of lowest electric grid in the world 12:01 - Justin Trudeau 12:24 - Simcoe Clinic, Canadian Center for Victims of Torture 14:01 - World population over time 14:36 - Paleodemography 14:59 - Degrowth 15:19 - Infant mortality in developed countries 15:55 - Tight link between energy, materials and GDP 20:54 - Duck and Cover Drills 21:05 - Environmental Movement and Nuclear 21:21 - Nagasaki bomb radiation injuries 21:49 - High dose radiation is deadly, low dose radiation less so 21:05 - Strontium-90 found in the teeth of babies 21:10 - Atmospheric weapons testing ban 22:33 - Fukushima meltdown, health impacts are negligible 23:09 - 20,000 people died from the Fukushima earthquake and following tsunami  23:47 - Fukushima contaminated water has been filtered out and is safe 24:24 - How radiation is measured 26:02 - Health effects from alcohol 26:16 - Drinking culture in the U.S. 27:22 - Nuclear energy density, land footprint 28:23 - Best nuclear applications and limitations 30:01 - Those who live in nuclear powered areas fare better 30:33 - Price of nuclear energy over the lifetime 30:45 - Nuclear power in France 31:18 - Canada energy history, center for nuclear research outside of the Manhattan Project 32:23 - 1000 people die prematurely every year due to coal 33:25 - Ontario population 33:38 - Candu Reactors 34:15 - Levelized cost of electricity, skewed with renewables 37:01 - Lazard Graphs 38:09 - Mark Jacobson 41:07 - Carbon emissions by power source 41:23 - Lifespan of nuclear plants 43:11 - Land use change impacts 43:31 - Nuclear and job creation 46:05 - US spending on military vs healthcare 48:49 - Meiji Restoration 49:33 - Vaclav Smil 50:42 - AI electricity demands 50:55 - AI risks 51:29 - Meredith Angwin  52:42 - Nuclear fuel 53:10 - 46% of uranium enrichment happens in Russia 54:15 - Known Uranium Reserves 54:25 - Haber Bosch  54:55 - Breeder Reactors 55:42 - Uranium in seawater 56:14 - Slow vs Fast Neutrons, fertile elements 57:04 - Sodium Fast Reactor 58:45 - China built a nuclear reactor in less than 4 years 1:00:05 - Defense in depth 1:01:11 - EMP, solar flare 1:01:30 - HBO's Chernobyl, wildlife thriving in chernobyl area 1:03:13 - Death toll from radiation in Chernobyl 1:05:13 - Scientific literature and confirmation bias 1:08:12 - Chernobyl Children's International 1:08:44 - Genome sequencing of highest exposures to radiation from chernobyl 1:09:09 - Germline mutations if the father smokes 1:10:02 - The Great Simplification animated video 1:10:32 - Peak Oil 1:12:10 - Complex 6-continent supply chains 1:12:30 - I, Pencil 1:15:19 - Nuclear Fusion 1:16:24 - Lawrence Livermore 1:17:45 - Tomas Murphy, Galactic Scale Energy 1:18:11 - Small Modular Reactor 1:19:26 - Cost saving in nuclear comes from scaling 1:19:34 - Wright's Law, economies of multiples 1:23:33 - Biden administration policies and advances on nuclear 1:24:00 - Non-profit industrial complex 1:24:24 - The size of the US non-profit economy 1:24:44 - Sierra Club, anti-nuclear history 1:25:14 - Rocky Mountain Club 1:27:15 - Hans Rosling 1:27:32 - Somalia infant mortality rate 1:27:42 - Cuba 1990s economic shock and response 1:27:42 - Vandana Shiva + TGS Episode 1:30:27 - Cognitive Dissonance 1:31:45 - Jonathan Haidt + TGS Podcast, Righteous Mind 1:32:48 - Fatality and hospitalization statistics for COVID for first responders 1:33:22 - Truckers protest in Ottawa 1:34:15 - The problem with superchickens  1:36:54 - How social media tries to keep you online 1:37:12 - Paleopsychology 1:37:55 - Tristan Harris and Daniel Schmachtenberger on Joe Rogan 1:39:45 - John Kitzhaber + TGS Episode, Robert Lustig + TGS Episode 1:39:55 - US healthcare 20% of GDP, 50% of the world's medical prescriptions are in the US  1:41:55 - Superutilizers 1:42:37 - Cuban medical system, spending, life expectancy, infant mortality 1:43:06 - Cuban export of pharmaceuticals 1:44:08 - Preventative medicine, chronic disease management 1:44:25 - Cuban doctor to person ratio, rest of the world 1:48:47 - Social determinants of health 1:49:20 - Cement floor reducing illness in Mexico 1:50:03 - Hygiene hypothesis 1:50:28 - Zoonotic disease and human/animal cohabitation 1:50:50 - Roundworm life cycle 1:52:38 - Acceptable miss rates 1:53:16 - Cancer screening effectiveness  1:53:58 - Drugs produced from nuclear plant byproducts 1:58:18 - Timothy O'Leary 2:02:28 - Superabundance 2:02:40 - Julian Simons and Paul Ehrlich bet 2:02:15 - Malthusian 2:06:08 - Pickering Plant Watch this video episode on YouTube

Für seine Serumtherapie gegen Diphterie erhält der Mediziner Emil von Behring 1901 den Nobelpreis. Am 16. April 1914 eröffnet er die Behringwerke Marburg und Bremen. Von Irene Geuer.

For decades, we heard alarming claims from experts like Malthus in the 1800s and Paul Ehrlich in the late 1900s, telling us that unless things changed dramatically, population growth would spell disaster for the world. Today, we will discuss the predictions, what happened, and what the future will look like.Sponsored By:Good Ranchers: Go to https://go.goodranchers.com/nickfreitas and use promo code "Nick" for $25 off your order + free shipping.---------------------------------------------Join our community chat: https://bit.ly/43zQDLNSubscribe to the MTA channel: https://bit.ly/MTAVideoYT---------------------------------------------Subscribe on Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/3aYSrD9Subscribe on Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2UUAVKDSubscribe to The Why Minutes: @thewhyminutes ---------------------------------------------Find Nick: Instagram: www.instagram.com/nickjfreitas/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NickFreitasVACommunity Chat: https://bit.ly/43zQDLNTwitter: https://twitter.com/NickForVAYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@NickjfreitasPodcast channel: https://www.youtube.com/@MakingTheArgumentTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@nickfreitas3.0

In this episode, Dinesh celebrates the House GOP's creation of a new Church Committee to investigate the abuses and corruption of the FBI and the Deep State. Why Biden's classified docs are far worse than Trump's. David Brooks and Bret Stephens say the GOP is now the party of Dinesh D'Souza, and Dinesh explains why this is a very good thing. Dinesh wonders whether Paul Ehrlich ever gets tired of being wrong?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.